The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 12 - Inwood Creek EAW Part 2 Inwood Ave North Lake Elmo, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report Prepared for Hans Hagen Homes by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. (KES Project No. 2014-032) July 3, 2014 1 WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY  The Inwood Ave N site was inspected on June 17, 2014 for the presence and extent of wetland.  The NWI map showed 3 wetlands within site boundaries.  The soil survey showed Barronett silt loam as the hydric soils present within site boundaries.  The DNR Protected Waters map showed a DNR Protected Waterway within the southwest corner of the site boundaries.  Two Type 1 (PEMAf) farmed, seasonally flooded wetland, and one Type 1 (PEMA) fresh meadow wetland were delineated within site boundaries. 2 Inwood Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report I. INTRODUCTION The Inwood Avenue North site was examined on June 17, 2014 for the presence and extent of wetland. The 154-acre site was located in Section 33, Township 29N, Range 21W, City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota. Generally the site was located east of the terminus of Inwood Avenue North and south of 10th Street N (Figure 1). Site limits were comprised of Washington County PID 3302921110001, 3302921110002, 3302921120001 and 3302921120003. The site consists primarily of cropland. For the 2014 growing season the site was planted with corn (Figure 2). Two wetlands were located in the north area of the cropland. Along the eastern 300 feet of the property exists a woodland of various planted conifer and deciduous species. A wetland was located in the northeast corner of the site within the woodland. An abandoned farmstead site is located within the northwest corner of the site. In the southwest corner of the site is a DNR Protected Waterway (Unamed). Generally topography was higher on the north half of the site. The site topo sloped gradually downhill toward the west and south. Adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site is a single family residential development. On the western boundary is the Oak Marsh Golf Course. To the south is commercial industrial facility. North of the site north of 10th Street North is additional cropland. II. METHODS Wetlands were identified using Routine Determination methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: North Central-Northeast Region (Version 2.0) as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetlands, which met criteria for hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland-upland boundaries were marked with pin flags and were located by E.G. Rudd. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at representative locations 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, 15-foot radius for the 3 shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type being sampled. Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 18-20 inches (unless otherwise noted) utilizing Munsell Soil Color Charts and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used in reporting are from the NTCHS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Version 7, 2010) which are commonly found in the Midwest. Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of plant species was taken from the 2012 National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar, R.W. and Kartesz, J.T. 2009. North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, version 2.4.0 (https://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, and BONAP, Chapel Hill, NC.). A review of available Farm Service (FSA) Agency photographs followed the protocol outlined in the document - Atypical Procedure: Offsite Hydrology Determination by Using Rainfall Data with Farm Service Agency Imagery, Adapted from NRCS-Minnesota Guidance (August, 1994). III. RESULTS Review of Soils, NWI, and DNR Information The National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) (Lake Elmo Quadrangle, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1991) showed 3 wetlands within site boundaries (Figure 3). The Soil Survey of Washington County, Minnesota (http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/) showed the following soil types within or near site boundaries (Figure 4). For information regarding soil series present on site, refer to Table 1. below. The DNR Protected Waters Map, Washinton County (http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us/) showed a DNR Protected Waterway within site boundaries (Figure 5). 4 Table 1. Soil Series Information SMU Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percentage of AOI Hydric Percent of Map Unit Hyric Category 49 Antigo silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.8 0.55% 1 Predominantly Nonhydric 49B Antigo silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 26.8 17.74% 1 Predominantly Nonhydric 120 Brill silt loam 6.8 4.53% 5 Predominantly Nonhydric 153B Santiago silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 41.5 27.49% 0 Nonhydric 153C Santiago silt loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 11.0 7.26% 0 Nonhydric 264 Freeon silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes 55.4 36.71% 2 Predominantly Nonhydric 266 Freer silt loam 2.5 1.68% 5 Predominantly Nonhydric 342B Kingsley sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 4.5 2.99% 3 Predominantly Nonhydric 342C Kingsley sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 0.2 0.11% 0 Nonhydric 1847 Barronett silt loam, sandy substratum 1.4 0.95% 90 Predominantly Hydric Wetland Determinations and Delineations Potential wetlands were evaluated in greater detail during field observations on June 17, 2014. Two wetlands were identified on the subject site (Figure 2). Corresponding data forms are included in Appendix A. The following description of the wetlands and adjacent upland reflects conditions observed at the time of the field visit. At that date, herbaceous vegetation and crops were actively growing and climatic/hydrologic conditions were assumed to be normal based on available precipitation data (Appendix B). A survey of the wetland boundaries is included as Appendix C. Wetland 1 was a Type 1 (PEMAf) farmed, seasonally flooded wetland dominated by witch grass with lesser amounts of velvetleaf and smartweed. The majority of the wetland had shallow standing water with a saturated fringe. Adjacent upland was cropped with healthy corn and had lamb’s quarter in between the rows. The delineated boundary followed a change in vegetation composition, cropping patterns and landscape position was supported by signatures on aerial photos. Wetland 1 corresponded to a PEM1Af wetland on the NWI map, but mapped in a non-hydric soil (Freeon) on the soil survey. 5 Wetland 2 was a Type 1 (PEMA) fresh meadow wetland dominated by a green ash saplings and inundated with reed canary grass, Kentucky bluegrass, red-osier dogwood and giant goldenrod. Adjacent upland at the sample location were cropped with corn and had giant goldenrod, thistle and horsetail between the rows near the wetland boundary. The delineated boundary followed a flat and gradual change in vegetation composition. Wetland 2 corresponded to a mapped PEM1A wetland on the NWI-map. However it was mapped in a non-hydric soil (Freeon) on the soil survey. Wetland 3 was a Type 1 (PEMAf) farmed, seasonally flooded wetland dominated by witch grass with lesser amounts of smartweed. The majority of the wetland had shallow standing water with a saturated fringe. Adjacent upland was cropped with healthy corn and had lamb’s quarter in between the rows. The delineated boundary followed a change in vegetation composition, cropping patterns and landscape position was supported by signatures on aerial photos. Wetland 3 corresponded to a PEM1Af wetland on the NWI map, but mapped in a non-hydric soil (Freeon) on the soil survey. FSA Photography Review FSA photos from the years 1979 through 2000, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2010 were available for review. Each year was assessed for wet/normal/dry climatic conditions using the online Minnesota Climatology Working Group, Wetland Delineation Precipitation Data Retrieval from a Gridded Database using a date of July 1 for the year assessed. Using this tool, only the years 1983,1989, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2006 and 2008 were calculated have normal precipitation during the 3 months preceding the assumed photo date. Areas showing wetland signatures in normal precipitation years were included in the FSA review. Wetland 1 and 3, as well as three (3) additional areas exhibiting potential wetland signatures were reviewed (Figure 6) and results of the review are included in Table 1 below. Area A is within the delineated boundary of Wetland 3 and Area B is within the delineated boundary of Wetland 1. None of the reviewed areas are located within hydric soils. 6 Table 1. FSA Review Inwood Avenue North Normal Precipitation Year Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E 1983 C SW C AP AP 1989 DO DO C AP AP 1992 DO DO C AP AP 1995 SW DO C AP AP 1996 C CS C AP AP 1997 CS DO C AP AP 2000 CS CS C AP AP 2006 C DO C AP AP 2008 C DO C AP AP Number of Significant Signatures 5 9 0 0 0 Percent Signatures in Normal Years 56% 100% 0% 0% 0% Determination Wetland Wetland Upland Upland Upland Note: Area D is a vegetative swale with steep sloped sides. Area E is a hilltop covered in trees. According to protocol, areas exhibiting wetland signatures in 50% or more of normal climatic years meet wetland hydrology criteria, and areas with wetland signatures in 30% to 50% of normal climatic years must be field investigated. Based on FSA aerial photo review for this site, only Areas A and B meet wetland hydrology criteria. Area A is encompassed within the delineated boundary of Wetland 3 and Area B is encompassed within the delineated boundary of Wetland 1. Other Areas A DNR Protected Waterway is located within the southwest corner of the site. This waterways is an unnamed creek that flows to Wilmes Lake. The banks of the waterway are steep sloped and lacked wetland fringe. No other areas with wetland vegetation or hydrology were observed on the site. No other areas were shown with hydric soil on the soil survey map, or as wetland on the NWI map. 7 V. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the COE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Both the delineation and report were conducted in compliance with regulatory standards in place at the time the work was completed. All site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Delineation Completed by: Melissa Lauterbach-Barrett, Soil Scientist Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1085 Professional Soil Scientist No. 45067 Report reviewed by: ____________________________________ Date: July 3, 2013 Mark Kjolhaug, Professional Wetland Scientist No. 000845 Inwood Avenue North Wetland Delineation Report Figures:  Figure 1 – Site Location Map  Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph  Figure 3 – NWI Map  Figure 4 – Soil Survey Map  Figure 5 – DNR Protected Waters Map  Figure 6 – FSA Review Areas  Figure 7 – FSA Aerial Wetland Signatures Figure 1 - Site Location Map (Bing Maps) Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 1,163 feet Site Location !H !H !H !H !H!H !H!H 1028 101810081038 9 9 8 9889981038 99810181 0 3 81028 1 0 0 810081 0 0 8 1008 Figure 2 - Property Boundary Map (2013 FSA Photograph) Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 500 feet !H Sample Points 10ft Lidar Contours Transects Wetland boundary Wetland 1 Wetland 2 T-1 T-2 SP-A SP-B Wetland 3 T-3 PEM1C PEM1C PUBGx PEM1Ad PEM1A PUBGx PABGx PEM1Af PEM1Af PUBGx PEM1Ad PUBGx PUBGx PEM1C PEM1A PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx Figure 3 - NWI Map (2013 MN DNR) Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 500 feet Legend 264 264 49B 153B 49B 49 120 342B 153B 153B 153B 264 153C 153B 49B 49 153C 367B 189 153B 266 342C 1847 266 266 153B 367B 49B 264 342B 153B 342C 342C 367B Figure 4 - Soil Survey Map Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 500 feetFor soil series information refer to Table 1. in text. Non-Hydric Soils Hydric Soils Unnamed to W i lmes Lake Figure 5 - DNR Protected Waters Map Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 500 feet Protected Watercourse Protected Waters Figure 6 - FSA Review Areas (2013 FSA Photograph) Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 500 feet Area D Area E Area A Area B Area C FSA Review Areas FSA Aerial Wetland Signatures - (2013 FSA Photograph) Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 229 feet Area A Area B Wetland Boundary 1983 PEMAR 1989 PEMAR. 1992 PEMAR 1995 PEMAR 1996 PEMAR 1997 PEMAR 2000 PEMAR 2006 PEMAR 2008 PEMAR Inwood Ave North Wetland Delineation Report Appendix A: Data Forms Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesXDepth (inches):YesX Depth (inches):Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionYesClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average. Cropping considered not normal circumstances, hence vegetation is disturbed. NHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?NSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)PEM1AfNoneDrainage Patterns (B10)No XSUMMARY OF FINDINGSNNNHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Water Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Moss Trim Lines (B16)Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Investigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope2 to 3Long.:NoXSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:No6/17/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans Hagen1-1USampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationDominance test is >50%1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)NHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro logy must be present, unless d isturbed or prob lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.150150.00%3.33230230Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 300609000)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Dominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusPanicum virgatum30YFAC Chenopodium album15Y FACU Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant Species 0 45 Sampling Point:1-1UVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)0 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:00 45015Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%90000 US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):NHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:Sampling Point:1-1USOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**6-24 10YR 4/3RemarksType*Redox FeaturesTextureL0-610010YR 3/2100LUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)XXXDescribe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesDepth (inches): 6YesX Depth (inches):Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionWetland 14Yes XClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average. Cropping considered not normal circumstances, hence vegetation is disturbed. YXHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?YSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)PEM1AfConcaveDrainage Patterns (B10)NoSUMMARY OF FINDINGSYYYHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Water Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Moss Trim Lines (B16)Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Investigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression1 to 2Long.:NoXSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:No6/17/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans Hagen1-1WSampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationX Dominance test is >50%1X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)YHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro logy must be present, unless d isturbed or prob lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.2101100.00%3.00170350Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 300021000)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Dominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusPanicum capillare65YFAC Populus deltoides5NFAC Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant Species 0 70 Sampling Point:1-1WVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)0 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:00 7000Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%140000 US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):YHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:Sampling Point:1-1WSOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**12-24 10YR 4/2Remarks10 CType*Redox FeaturesTextureL0-1210010YR 3/210 10YR 4/6M CLUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:6/17/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans Hagen2-1USampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoInvestigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Flat1 to 3Long.:NoXSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:NoWater Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Moss Trim Lines (B16)Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)SUMMARY OF FINDINGSNNYHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionYesClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average. Cropping considered not normal circumstances, hence vegetation is disturbed. NHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?NSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)PEM1ANoneDrainage Patterns (B10)No X(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesXDepth (inches): 14YesX Depth (inches):Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationX Dominance test is >50%1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%31541310 Sampling Point:2-1UVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)1 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:350 20501605 Vitis riparia5 155 FACWoody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesY Solidago canadensis50Y FACUPhalaris arundinacea10N FACW5N FACUTrifolium pratense 25Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusPoa pratensis90Y FACUCornus alba10Y FACWDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusFraxinus pennsylvanica15 Y FACW20Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Tree Stratum Plot Size (305Picea pungensPopulus tremuloides064030700)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status15YYFACUFAC YHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro logy must be present, unless d isturbed or prob lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.740457.14%3.61710783US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:100SiLType*Redox FeaturesTextureSiL0-1810010YR 3/2Sampling Point:2-1USOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**18-24 10YR 4/4RemarksPolyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):NHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)XXXDescribe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesDepth (inches): SurfaceYesX Depth (inches):Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionWetland 2SurfaceYes XClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average.YXHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?YSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)PEM1ANoneDrainage Patterns (B10)NoSUMMARY OF FINDINGSYYYHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Water Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Moss Trim Lines (B16)Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Investigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression0 to 1Long.:NoSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:Yes6/17/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans Hagen2-1WSampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationX Dominance test is >50%1X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)YHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro logy must be present, unless d isturbed or prob lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.420466.67%2.6360603Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30Fraxinus pennsylvanica020002200)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status20Y FACW Y FACW20Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Dominant SpeciesIndicator StatusFraxinus pennsylvanica15 15Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusPoa pratensis45Y FACU Phalaris arundinacea40Y FACWSolidago gigantea30Y FACW5N FACWEquisetum pratenseWoody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesY FACU5 Parthenocissus vitacea5 120 Sampling Point:2-1WVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)1 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:1100 160050Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%2434810 US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):YHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:Sampling Point:2-1WSOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix10 D MDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**10YR 4/16-18 10YR 4/2Remarks10 CType*Redox FeaturesTextureL0-610010YR 3/280 10YR 4/6M CLUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesXDepth (inches):YesX Depth (inches):WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionYesClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average. Cropping considered not normal circumstances, hence vegetation is disturbed. NHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?NSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)PEM1AfNoneDrainage Patterns (B10)No XSUMMARY OF FINDINGSNNNHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Other (Explain in Remarks) Water Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Moss Trim Lines (B16)Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)Investigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope1 to 2Long.:NoXSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:No7/2/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans Hagen3-1USampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationDominance test is >50%1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)NHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro logy must be present, unless d isturbed or prob lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.75150.00%3.7525100Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 300601500)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Dominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusChenopodium album15Y FACU Panicum capillare5YFAC Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant Species 0 20 Sampling Point:3-1UVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)0 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:00 20015Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%40000 US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):NHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:Sampling Point:3-1USOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**17-24 10YR 4/4RemarksType*Redox FeaturesTextureSiL0-1710010YR 3/2100SiLUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)XXXDescribe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesDepth (inches): SurfaceYesX Depth (inches):WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionWetland 312Yes XClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average. Cropping considered not normal circumstances, hence vegetation is disturbed. YXHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?YSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)PEM1AfConcaveDrainage Patterns (B10)NoSUMMARY OF FINDINGSYYYHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Other (Explain in Remarks) Water Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Moss Trim Lines (B16)Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)Investigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression1 to 3Long.:NoXSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:No7/2/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans Hagen3-1WSampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationX Dominance test is >50%1X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)YHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro logy must be present, unless d isturbed or prob lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.1951100.00%3.00165330Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 300019500)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Dominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusPanicum capillare60YFAC Populus deltoides5NFAC Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant Species 0 65 Sampling Point:3-1WVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)0 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:00 6500Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%130000 US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):YHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:Sampling Point:3-1WSOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix25 C MDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**20-24 10YR 4/2 75 10YR 4/612-20 10YR 4/2Remarks5CType*Redox FeaturesTextureSiL0-1210010YR 3/195 10YR 4/6CLPL SiLUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:6/17/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans HagenSP-ASampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoInvestigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Basin0 to 1Long.:NoXSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:Other (Explain in Remarks) Water Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) NoSUMMARY OF FINDINGSNNNHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionYesClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average. Cropping considered not normal circumstances, hence vegetation is disturbed. NHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?NSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)NoneConcaveDrainage Patterns (B10)No XMoss Trim Lines (B16)(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesXDepth (inches):Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)YesX Depth (inches):Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationDominance test is >50%1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%230000 Sampling Point:SP-AVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)0 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:00 1150450 115 Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant Species Arctium minus35Y FACUUrtica dioica20NFAC10N FACUChenopodium album 0Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusPanicum virgatum50YFAC Dominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30018021000)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status NHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro logy must be present, unless d isturbed or prob lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.390150.00%3.39270580US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:90 10YR 3/1PL SLType*Redox FeaturesTextureL0-1210010YR 3/2Sampling Point:SP-ASOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**12-24 10YR 4/4Remarks10 DPolyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):NHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesXDepth (inches):YesX Depth (inches):WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionYesClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average. Cropping considered not normal circumstances, hence vegetation is disturbed. NHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?NSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)NoneConvexDrainage Patterns (B10)No XSUMMARY OF FINDINGSNNNHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Other (Explain in Remarks) Water Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Moss Trim Lines (B16)Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)Investigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope2 to 3Long.:NoXSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:No6/17/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans HagenSP-BSampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationDominance test is >50%1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)NHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro logy must be present, unless d isturbed or prob lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.4000.00%4.001050Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30040000)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Dominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusChenopodium album10Y FACU Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant Species 0 10 Sampling Point:SP-BVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)0 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:00 10010Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%20000 US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):NHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:Sampling Point:SP-BSOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**12-24 10YR 4/4 Remarks10 DType*Redox FeaturesTextureL0-1210010YR 3/290 10YR 3/1PL SLUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region Inwood Ave North Wetland Delineation Report Appendix B: Precipitation Data Inwood Ave, Lake Elmo: Precipitation Summary Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group Monthly Totals: 2014 Target: T29 R21 S33, Lat: 44.95597 Lon: 92.93401 mon year cc tttN rrW ss nnnn oooooooo pre Jan 2014 82 29N 21W 32 SWCD 1.31 Feb 2014 82 29N 21W 32 SWCD 1.10 Mar 2014 82 29N 21W 32 SWCD .90 Apr 2014 82 29N 21W 32 SWCD 7.80 May 2014 82 29N 21W 32 SWCD 4.78 April/May/June Daily Records Date Precip. Apr 1, 2014 T Apr 2, 2014 0 Apr 3, 2014 T Apr 4, 2014 .88 Apr 5, 2014 0 Apr 6, 2014 0 Apr 7, 2014 0 Apr 8, 2014 0 Apr 9, 2014 0 Apr 10, 2014 0 Apr 11, 2014 0 Apr 12, 2014 - Apr 13, 2014 - Apr 14, 2014 - Apr 15, 2014 - Apr 16, 2014 .21 Apr 17, 2014 1.02 Apr 18, 2014 0 Apr 19, 2014 - Apr 20, 2014 - Apr 21, 2014 .24 Apr 22, 2014 0 Apr 23, 2014 - Apr 24, 2014 .86 Apr 25, 2014 0 Apr 26, 2014 - Apr 27, 2014 - Apr 28, 2014 2.37 Apr 29, 2014 - Apr 30, 2014 2.22 1981-2010 Summary Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec WARM ANN WAT 30% 0.56 0.55 1.43 2.28 3.10 3.44 2.47 3.29 2.55 1.74 1.14 0.72 18.88 30.90 29.16 70% 1.34 1.05 2.22 3.26 4.14 5.61 4.73 5.21 4.31 3.55 2.42 1.62 21.59 35.13 35.44 mean 0.99 0.85 1.92 2.80 3.79 4.58 4.00 4.43 3.54 2.90 1.94 1.30 20.34 33.04 32.84 Date Precip. May 1, 2014 .13 May 2, 2014 .01 May 3, 2014 - May 4, 2014 - May 5, 2014 T May 6, 2014 0 May 7, 2014 0 May 8, 2014 .03 May 9, 2014 .55 May 10, 2014 - May 11, 2014 - May 12, 2014 .80 May 13, 2014 .17 May 14, 2014 0 May 15, 2014 0 May 16, 2014 0 May 17, 2014 0 May 18, 2014 0 May 19, 2014 0 May 20, 2014 2.01 May 21, 2014 0 May 22, 2014 0 May 23, 2014 0 May 24, 2014 0 May 25, 2014 0 May 26, 2014 0 May 27, 2014 .57 May 28, 2014 .51 May 29, 2014 0 May 30, 2014 0 May 31, 2014 - Date Precip. Jun 1, 2014 1.92 Jun 2, 2014 .16 Jun 3, 2014 0 Jun 4, 2014 0 Jun 5, 2014 0 Jun 6, 2014 .03 Jun 7, 2014 .37 Jun 8, 2014 0 Jun 9, 2014 .03 Jun 10, 2014 0 Jun 11, 2014 0 Jun 12, 2014 .43 Jun 13, 2014 0 Jun 14, 2014 .04 Jun 15, 2014 1.57 Jun 16, 2014 .07 Jun 17, 2014 .38 Site Visit 0123456789104/15/144/30/145/15/145/30/146/14/14Daily and monthly total precipitation (inches) monthly precipdaily precip30d rolling total30 - day rolling totalnormalprecip rangeSite Visit Climate ConditionsHans Hagen, Lake Elmo Inwood Ave North Wetland Delineation Report Appendix C: Wetland Boundary Survey Inwood Ave North Wetland Delineation Report Appendix D: FSA Review Photographs Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (1983 FSA Photograph) Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 431 feet Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (1989 FSA Photograph) Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 431 feet Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (1992 FSA Photograph) Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 431 feet Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (1995 FSA Photograph) Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 431 feet Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (1996 FSA Photograph) Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 431 feet Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (1997 FSA Photograph) Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 431 feet Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (2000 FSA Photograph) Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 431 feet Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (2006 FSA Photograph) Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 500 feet Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (2008 FSA Photograph) Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product. ¯ 1 inch = 500 feet Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E ¬«36 §¨¦94 §¨¦494 Pine Springs Grant Stillwater Oak Park Heights Baytown Twp. West Lakeland Twp. AftonWoodbury Oakdale Valley Branch South Washington Brown's Creek t Ramsey Washington LIMITATION OF LIABILITYThis document is not a legally recorded map or survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records and information from various state, county, and city offices, and other sources. 00.510.25 Miles K:\gis\LAKEELMO\PROJECTS\2009 SWMP\Maps\Figure 19-WatershedAuthoritiesMap.mxd FIGURE 19: WATERSHED AUTHORITY /Legend City Boundary Brown's Creek Ramsey Washington South Washington Valley Branch Sources: VBWD, Metropolitan Council, TKDA 2030 Comprehensive Plan City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Map date: January 2009 Prepared by: Surface Water Management Plan