Loading...
Erhart Property Wetland Delineation Report Erhart Property Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report Prepared for Tim Erhart by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. (KES Project No. 2020-041) July 7, 2020 Erhart Property Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page 1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY .......................................................................... 1 2. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 1 3. METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 2 4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 3 4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD Information ........................................... 3 4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations......................................................................... 4 4.3 Other Areas ........................................................................................................................ 5 4.4 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination .................................... 6 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION .............................................................................. 7 FIGURES 1. Site Location 2. Existing Conditions 3. National Wetlands Inventory 4. Soil Survey 5. DNR Public Waters Inventory 6. National Hydrography Dataset APPENDICES A. Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota B. Wetland Delineation Data Forms C. Precipitation Data 1 Erhart Property Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report 1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY • The 46.76-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 PFO1A/PEM1A/PEM1C, one PFO1A/PEM1A/PEM1C/PSS1C,/PEM1F/PUBG and one PEM1A/PEM1C/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 10-215 W) within the eastern portion of the site. • The National Hydrography Dataset showed one Lake/Pond within the eastern portion of the site. • Four wetlands were delineated onsite as shown in Table 1 below: Table 1. Wetlands delineated on the Erhart Property Wetland ID Wetland Type Dominant Vegetation Area (Acres Onsite) Circular 39 Cowardin Eggers and Reed 1 Type 1 PFOA Seasonally flooded basin Green ash canopy, sparsely vegetated concave surface 0.05 2 Type 6/2/3 PFOA/PEM1A/ PEM1C Shrub-carr, wet meadow, shallow marsh American elm tree, boxelder tree reed canary grass, jewelweed, cattail, various sedges 3.39 3 Type 2/3/5 PEM1A/PEM1C /PUBG Wet meadow, shallow marsh, open water Reed canary grass, stinging nettle, cattail, bulrush 19.29 4 Type 6/3/5 PFO1A/PEM1B/ PABG Shrub-carr, shallow marsh, open water Green ash, redosier dogwood, willow, reed canary grass, cattail 0.43 Erhart Property Wetland Delineation Report 2 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 116 North, Range 23 West, City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The site was situated east of County Road 101, south of Country Road 18 (Figure 1). The property corresponded to Carver County PID#: 251550022. The Erhart Property was primarily woodland throughout the site with a pond on the eastern portion. Topography of the site sloped from 942 ft MSL on the western portion of the site down to 874 ft MSL within the wetland on the southwestern 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: (1) 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 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers 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 R1 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 15-foot radius for the shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled. Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 24 inches (unless otherwise noted) using a Munsell Soil Color Book and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used are from Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources Erhart Property Wetland Delineation Report 3 Conservation Service (NRCS) in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Version 8.1, 2017). Mapped soils are separated into five classes based on the composition of hydric components and the Hydric Rating by Map Unit color classes utilized on Web Soil Survey. The five classes include Hydric (100 percent hydric components), Predominantly Hydric (66 to 99 percent hydric components), Partially Hydric (33 to 65 percent hydric components), Predominantly Non-Hydric (1 to 32 percent hydric components), and Non-Hydric (less than one percent hydric components). Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of plant species was taken from the 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 NWI, Soils, Public Waters, and NHD Information The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) showed three wetlands within the site boundaries (Figure 3). The Soil Survey (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 % of Area % Hydric 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 Lester-Kilkenny loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes 7.6 16.20 0 Non-Hydric KC2 Lester-Kilkenny complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded 0 0.00 5 Predominantly Non-Hydric KD2 Lester-Kilkenny complex, 10 to 16 percent slopes, moderately eroded 1.6 3.50 5 Predominantly Non-Hydric KE2 Lester-Kilkenny complex, 16 to 22 percent slopes 5.5 11.70 5 Predominantly Non-Hydric KF Lester-Kilkenny complex, 22 to 40 percent slopes 0.4 0.80 0 Non-Hydric MK Muskego and Houghton soils, 0 to 1 percent slopes 11.8 25.20 100 Hydric Erhart Property Wetland Delineation Report 4 The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2015) showed one DNR Public Water (Unnamed 10-215 W) approximately 30 feet south of the site (Figure 5). The National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey 2015) showed one Lake/Ponds within the eastern 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 three-month antecedent precipitation data (Appendix C). Wetland 1 was a Type 1 (PFO1A) forested seasonally flooded basin with a canopy dominated by green ash trees and a sparsely vegetated understory. The wetland was saturated approximately 10 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 common blue violet, common buckthorn, 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 1 was located in the center of the site and discharged down slope into Wetland 3 located in southern portion of the site. Wetland 2 was a Type 6/2/3 (PFOA/PEM1A/PEM1C) 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 green ash trees with an understory of prickly gooseberry, Virginia waterleaf and scattered garlic mustard. Primary and secondary hydrology indicators were not observed on the upland. The wetland boundary corresponded with a slight topographic rise along a transition from shrub- carr to upland woodland vegetation. The wetland was shown as a PFO1A/PEM1A/PEM1C wetland on the NWI map, and fell in an area mapped as Hamel consociation (Hydric) and Erhart Property Wetland Delineation Report 5 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 2/3/5 (PEM1A/PEM1C/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 18 inches along the wetland fringe. Adjacent upland to the southwest consisted of woodland 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 of bur oak and American elm trees with an understory of common buckthorn 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 PFO1A/ PEM1A/ PEM1C/PSS1C,/PEM1F/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 a Type 6/3/5 (PFO1A/PEM1B/PABG) shrub-carr, shallow marsh and open water wetland dominated by Green ash trees and redosier dogwood shrubs that transitioned into reed canary grass, 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 bitternut hickory with a mix of boxelder, sugar maple, and American elm trees with an understory of prickly ash, buckthorn, 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/PEM1C/PABG wetland on the NWI map, but fell in an area mapped as Lester-Kilkenny Complex (Predominately Non-Hydric) on the soil survey. Wetland 4 extended offsite to the north and drained east into Wetland 2. 4.3 Other Areas Other areas were investigated because they were: (1) 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 Erhart Property Wetland Delineation Report 6 area mapped as Hamel (Hydric) on the soil survey. 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 of vegetation. 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 of hydric soil indicators and primary or secondary wetland hydrology indicators. No other areas with hydrophytic 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: (1) 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. Erhart Property Wetland Delineation Report 7 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. This wetland delineation and report were prepared in compliance with the regulatory standards in place at the time the work was performed. Site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Delineation completed by: Adam Cameron, Wetland Ecologist/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, Professional Wetland Scientist No. 000845 Erhart Property Wetland Delineation Report FIGURES 1. Site Location 2. Existing Conditions 3. National Wetlands Inventory 4. Soil Survey 5. DNR Protected Waters Inventory 6. National Hydrography Dataset © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure 1 - Site Location Erhart Property (KES 2020-041)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approxim ate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 800 Feet Site Boun dary Source: ESRI Streets Basemap CR-101 !( !(Wetland 40.43 acres Wetland 10.05 acres Wetland 319.29 acres Wetland 23.39 acres SP4-1 SP-A SP-B SP3-1 SP1-1 SP2-1 Figure 2 - Existing Con dition s Erhart Property (KES 2020-041)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approxim ate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boun dary !(Sa mp le Point Tra nsect Level On e D elin eation Wetlan d Bo undaries Lake/Po nd Carver Co unty Lidar Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons PEM1C PU BG PABG PFO1A PEM1C PEM1F PEM1C PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PFO1A PFO1A PFO1A PSS1C PABG PEM1A PEM1A Figure 3 - National Wetlands Inventory Erhart Property (KES 2020-041)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approxim ate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boun dary PABG PEM1A PEM1C PEM1F PFO1A PSS1C PUBG Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons, USFWS MK EX W KC KCKE2 KB2 KB2 KC HM HM HM KC HM KF MK KB2 NC3KC2 KE2 HC2 KB2 KC2 GL KB KC KE2 KD2 ND3 TB KB KB KC2 KC2 KB KF NE3KFKD2 Figure 4 - Soil Survey Erhart Property (KES 2020-041)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approxim ate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boun dary Hydric/Pred ominantly Hydric Pred ominan tly Non -H yd ric/No n-Hydric Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons, USDA, NRCS Se e narrativ e for soil se rie s informa tion. Riley (10-2 P) Unnamed (10-214 W) Unnamed (10-215 W)Bl uf f Cr e e k (M- 0 5 5 - 0 1 4 ) Figure 5 - DNR Public Waters Inventory Erhart Property (KES 2020-041)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approxim ate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 800 Feet Site Boun dary Pu blic Ditch/Altere d N atu ra l Wa tercou rse Pu blic Wate rco urse Pu blic Wate rs Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, MN DNR Figure 6 - National Hydrography Dataset Erhart Property (KES 2020-041)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approxim ate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 800 Feet Site Boun dary Hydro Ju nctio n Artificial Path Conne ctor Stream/River Lake/Po nd Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons, USGS Erhart Property Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX A Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 1 of 5 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 (wetlan d, 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 MPARS 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 project and the location and type of water resources impacted, multiple authorizations may be required as different regulatory programs have different types of jurisdiction over different types of resources. Regulatory Review Structure Federal The St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the federal a gency 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. State There are three state regulatory programs that regulate activities affecting water resources. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulates most activities affecting wetlands. It 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 co mply with state water quality standards. One or more of these regulatory programs may be applicable to any one project. Required Information Prior to submitting an application, applicants are strongly encouraged to seek input from the Corps Project Manager and LGU staff to identify regulatory issues and required application materials for their proposed project. 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 1 through 5 of this joint 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. Contact 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 1 through 5, and Attachment B. • For activities requiring compensatory mitigation/replacement plan, submit Parts 1 thru 5, and Attachments C and D. • 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 Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 2 of 5 Submission Instructions 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: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx and select “Minnesota” from the contact Information 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. The MPCA will request a copy of the completed joint application form directly from an applicant when they determine an individual 401 water quality certification is required for a proposed project. Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit: Send to the appropriate Local Government Unit. If 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 LGU. DNR Public Waters Permitting: In 2014 the DNR will begin using the Minnesota DNR Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) for submission of Public Waters permit applications (https://webapps11.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/public/authentication/login). 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 of this joint 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 of this joint application. For certain types of activities, the MPARS application may also provide all of the necessary info rmation required under Parts three and four of the joint application. However, it is the responsibility of the Applicant to make sure that the joint application contains all of the required information, including identification of all aquatic resources impacted by the project (see Part four of the joint application). After confirming that the MPARS application contains all of the 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 Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 3 of 5 Project Name and/or Number: Erhart Property 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 ag ent’s contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: TIMOTHY A & 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-mail Address: danblake@pemtom.com Agent Name: Adam Cameron Mailing Address: 2500 Shadywood Road #130, Orono MN 55331 Phone: 952-401-8757 Ext. #106 E-mail Address: Adam@kjolhaugenv.com PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Carver City/Township: Chanhassen Parcel ID and/or Address: 251550022 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): S:23, 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, highways. Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet): 46.7 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. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 5 of 5 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): 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 ar ea (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 d etermination 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 Erhart Property Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX B Wetland Delineation Data Forms Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Adam Cameron & Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Lester-Kilkenny Complex NWI Classification: 2 to 4 Lat:Long:44°49'59.0"N Datum:93°32'25.8"W Y N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical. N Ulmus americana 70 Y FACW Dominan t Species Indicator Staus Acer negundo 30 Y FAC Rhamnus cathartica 10 Y FAC 0 0 40 120 10 2.36 110 260 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 (Plot size:5 ft Radius Y 0 Erhart Property Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 0 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: ---------- 70 140 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 3 3 0 0 100.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 05/12/2020 Sampling Point:SP1-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S:23,24,25,26 T:116N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X Sampling Point:SP1-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 6 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 6 to 17 10YR 2/1 70 10YR 2/2 30%Clay Loam 10YR 5/2 50%RM M Clay Loam 17 to 28 10YR 2/1 30 20%D M Clay Loam 10YR 4/3 Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) NHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Adam Cameron & Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Lester-Kilkenny Complex NWI Classification: 0 to 2 Lat:Long:44°49'59.0"N Datum:93°32'25.8"W Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 1If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical. Y Fraxinus pennsylvanica 35 Y FACW Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 35 70 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 (Plot size:5 ft Radius Y 0 Erhart Property Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 0 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: ---------- 35 70 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 0 0 100.00% Sparsley vegetated concave surface. 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: 35 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 05/12/2020 Sampling Point:SP1-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S:23,24,25,26 T:116N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X X Sampling Point:SP1-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 6 10YR 2/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Loam 6 to 13 10YR 2/1 30 10YR 4/6 5 C M Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): 10 *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 10YR 4/1 65 RM M Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Adam Cameron & Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Lester-Kilkenny Complex NWI Classification: 2 to 4 Lat:Long:44°49'59.0"N Datum:93°32'25.8"W N N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical. N Acer saccharum 35 Y FACU Dominan t Species Indicator Staus Acer negundo 15 Y FAC Zanthoxylum americanum 15 Y FACU Rubus idaeus 15 Y FACU Ribes americanum 5 N FACW 0 0 20 60 35 3.58 95 340 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Alliaria petiolata 5 Y FAC (Plot size:5 ft Radius Impatiens capensis 5 Y FACW N 0 Erhart Property Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 10 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: ---------- 10 20 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 6 3 65 260 50.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 05/12/2020 Sampling Point:SP2-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S:23,24,25,26 T:116N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP2-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 6 N 2.5/100 Silt Loam 6 to 20 N 2.5/100 Clay Loam 10YR 4/220 to 36 N 2.5/95 5%D M Sandy Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) NHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes X No Depth (inches):24 22 *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Adam Cameron & Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel Consociation NWI Classification: 0 to 2 Lat:Long:44°49'59.0"N Datum:93°32'25.8"W Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 2If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 5 15 0 2.09 55 115 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Impatiens capensis 30 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Solidago gigantea 10 N FACW Cardamine pensylvanica 10 N Alliaria petiolata 5 N FAC Y 0 Erhart Property Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 55 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: ---------- FACW 50 100 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 0 0 100.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 05/12/2020 Sampling Point:SP2-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S:23,24,25,26 T:116N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PFO1A , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) X X Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) X True Aquatic Plants (B14) X X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Sampling Point:SP2-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 16 N 2.5/100 Mucky Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes X No Depth (inches):2 0 *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Adam Cameron & Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel Consociation NWI Classification: 2 to 4 Lat:Long:44°49'59.0"N Datum:93°32'25.8"W N N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical. N Acer saccharum 35 Y FACU Dominan t Species Indicator Staus Zanthoxylum americanum 15 Y FACU 0 0 0 0 15 4.00 80 320 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Rubus idaeus 10 Y FACU (Plot size:5 ft Radius Glechoma hederacea 10 Y FACU Solidago canadensis 10 Y N 0 Erhart Property Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 30 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: ---------- FACU 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 5 0 80 320 0.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 35 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 05/12/2020 Sampling Point:SP3-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S:23,24,25,26 T:116N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP3-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 24 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 24 to 48 10YR 2/1 90 10YR 4/2 5%D M Clay Loam 10YR 4/6 5%C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) NHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 05/12/2020 Sampling Point:SP3-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S:23,24,25,26 T:116N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Erhart Property Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 85 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: ---------- 85 170 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 1 0 0 100.00% Y 0 Phalaris arundinacea 80 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Urtica Dioica 5 N FACW 0 2.00 85 170 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 3If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus Y N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Y Essexville Consociation NWI Classification: 0 to 3 Lat:Long:44°49'59.0"N Datum:93°32'25.8"W Investigator(s):Adam Cameron & Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X 23 to 30 N 2.5/100 Clay Loam *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes X No Depth (inches):20 18 Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) NHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 30 to 33 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam 20 to 23 N 2.5/100 Sapric Muck 0 to 20 10YR 2/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam Sampling Point:SP3-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Adam Cameron & Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel Consociation NWI Classification: 2 to 4 Lat:Long:44°49'59.0"N Datum:93°32'25.8"W N N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical. N Acer negundo 30 Y FAC Dominan t Species Indicator Staus Carya cordiformis 30 Y FACU Rhamnus cathartica 20 Y FAC Zanthoxylum americanum 5 Y FACU 0 0 50 150 25 3.47 95 330 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Arctium minus 10 Y FACU (Plot size:5 ft Radius N 0 Erhart Property Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 10 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: ---------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 5 2 45 180 40.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 05/12/2020 Sampling Point:SP4-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S:23,24,25,26 T:116N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP4-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 10 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 10 to 20 10YR 2/1 90 10YR 4/3 5%D M Clay Loam 20 to 36 10YR 2/1 70 10YR 4/6 25%RM M Clay Loam 5%C M Clay Loam 10YR 4/3 Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) NHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Adam Cameron & Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Lester-Kilkenny Complex NWI Classification: 1 to 2 Lat:Long:44°49'59.0"N Datum:93°32'25.8"W Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 4If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 85 170 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Phalaris arundinacea 80 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Urtica Dioica 5 N FACW Y 0 Erhart Property Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 85 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: ---------- 85 170 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 0 0 100.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 05/12/2020 Sampling Point:SP4-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S:23,24,25,26 T:116N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PEM1A , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Sampling Point:SP4-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 18 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Loam 18 to 36 10YR 3/1 100 Clay Loam 10YR 4/636 to 40 10YR 4/1 95 5 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes X No Depth (inches):14 13 *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 05/12/2020 Sampling Point:SP-AMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S:23,24,25,26 T:116N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Erhart Property Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: ---------- 90 180 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 1 0 0 100.00% Y 0 Phalaris arundinacea 90 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius 0 2.00 90 180 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus Y N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Y Hamel Consociation NWI Classification: 1 to 2 Lat:Long:44°49'59.0"N Datum:93°32'25.8"W Investigator(s):Adam Cameron & Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Swale Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X 36 to 48 10YR 2/1 70 10YR 4/3 30 D M Clay Loam *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) NHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 22 to 36 10YR 2/1 75 10YR 4/3 25 D M Clay Loam 8 to 22 10YR 2/1 97 3 D M Clay Loam 10YR 4/3 4 to 8 10YR 2/1 55 10YR 4/3 45 RM M Loam 0 to 4 10YR 2/1 100 Loam Sampling Point:SP-A Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Adam Cameron & Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Swale Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel Consociation NWI Classification: 1 to 2 Lat:Long:44°49'59.0"N Datum:93°32'25.8"W X N N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling total drier than normal range. Precipitation from gridded database method is typical. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 (Plot size:5 ft Radius N 0 Erhart Property Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 0 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: ---------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 0 0 0 0 0.00% Sample point was void of vegetation, was observed to be burnt and scraped Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 05/12/2020 Sampling Point:SP-BMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S:23,24,25,26 T:116N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP-B Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 24 10YR 2/1 100 24 to 44 10YR 2/1 93 10YR 4/1 5%D M Clay Loam 10YR 4/6 2%C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) NHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Drainage tile observed *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Erhart Property Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX C Precipitation Data 0 1 2 3 4 5 2/11/20 2/26/20 3/12/20 3/27/20 4/11/20 4/26/20 5/11/20Daily and monthly total precipitation (inches) monthly precip daily precip 30d rolling total 30 -day rolling total normal precip range Site Visit Climate Conditions Chanhassen,MN Site Visit May 12, 2020 Erhart property, Chanhassen MN: Precipitation Summary Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group Monthly Totals: 2020 (latitude: 44.84104 longitude: 93.55178) Target: 116N 23W S23 mon year cc tttN rrW ss nnnn oooooooo pre (inches) Jan 2020 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG .80 Feb 2020 10 116N 23W 15 NWS CHAN_NWS .59 Mar 2020 10 116N 23W 15 NWS CHAN_NWS 2.88 Apr 2020 10 116N 23W 15 NWS CHAN_NWS 1.84 May 2020 10 116N 23W 15 NWS CHAN_NWS 5.12 February/March/April/May Daily Records Date Precip. Feb 1, 2020 0 Feb 2, 2020 0 Feb 3, 2020 0 Feb 4, 2020 0 Feb 5, 2020 0 Feb 6, 2020 T Feb 7, 2020 .05 Feb 8, 2020 0 Feb 9, 2020 .40 Feb 10, 2020 T Feb 11, 2020 T Feb 12, 2020 T Feb 13, 2020 0 Feb 14, 2020 0 Feb 15, 2020 0 Feb 16, 2020 0 Feb 17, 2020 .14 Feb 18, 2020 0 Feb 19, 2020 0 Feb 20, 2020 0 Feb 21, 2020 0 Feb 22, 2020 0 Feb 23, 2020 0 Feb 24, 2020 0 Feb 25, 2020 0 Feb 26, 2020 T Feb 27, 2020 T Feb 28, 2020 T Feb 29, 2020 T 1981-2010 Summary Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec WARM ANN WAT 30% 0.47 0.40 1.17 1.91 2.56 3.27 2.94 3.11 2.48 1.22 1.02 0.63 17.17 29.12 27.76 70% 1.02 0.97 2.05 2.89 4.35 5.27 4.23 5.25 4.35 3.40 1.86 1.36 22.15 33.30 34.31 mean 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 Date Precip. Mar 1, 2020 0 Mar 2, 2020 0 Mar 3, 2020 T Mar 4, 2020 T Mar 5, 2020 T Mar 6, 2020 0 Mar 7, 2020 0 Mar 8, 2020 0 Mar 9, 2020 0 Mar 10, 2020 .08 Mar 11, 2020 0 Mar 12, 2020 .07 Mar 13, 2020 0 Mar 14, 2020 0 Mar 15, 2020 0 Mar 16, 2020 .01 Mar 17, 2020 T Mar 18, 2020 T Mar 19, 2020 .48 Mar 20, 2020 0 Mar 21, 2020 T Mar 22, 2020 .05 Mar 23, 2020 .09 Mar 24, 2020 0 Mar 25, 2020 .19 Mar 26, 2020 0 Mar 27, 2020 .03 Mar 28, 2020 1.57 Mar 29, 2020 .31 Mar 30, 2020 0 Mar 31, 2020 0 Date Precip. May 1, 2020 T May 2, 2020 0 May 3, 2020 0 May 4, 2020 0 May 5, 2020 0 May 6, 2020 0 May 7, 2020 0 May 8, 2020 0 May 9, 2020 .22 May 10, 2020 T May 11, 2020 0 May 12, 2020 0(Site Visit) Date Precip. Apr 1, 2020 0 Apr 2, 2020 .03 Apr 3, 2020 .02 Apr 4, 2020 0 Apr 5, 2020 T Apr 6, 2020 0 Apr 7, 2020 .01 Apr 8, 2020 0 Apr 9, 2020 .01 Apr 10, 2020 0 Apr 11, 2020 0 Apr 12, 2020 .49 Apr 13, 2020 .02 Apr 14, 2020 T Apr 15, 2020 T Apr 16, 2020 0 Apr 17, 2020 0 Apr 18, 2020 0 Apr 19, 2020 0 Apr 20, 2020 .01 Apr 21, 2020 T Apr 22, 2020 T Apr 23, 2020 0 Apr 24, 2020 .01 Apr 25, 2020 0 Apr 26, 2020 .04 Apr 27, 2020 .08 Apr 28, 2020 1.12 Apr 29, 2020 0 Apr 30, 2020 0