Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-2024 PRF Packet PARKS AND RECREATION AND FORESTRY COMMISSION 6:30 P.M. I FEBRUARY 22,2024 I MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL MEETING AGENDA MOUNDS VIEW 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Anderson, Arel, Lillemo, Lundberg, Palm, Mills, Wake Wiesner Staff: Peterson I Thomas *to be absent 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 25, 2024 5. PUBLIC INPUT Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight's agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name and address. Please limit your comments to three minutes. 6. STAFF REPORTS A. Parks and Recreation -Andy B. Public Works— Pete 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Ball Field Improvements- City Hall, and Silver View Park B. Greenfield Park— Ball Field Pitchers Mounds Replace with all clay mound C. Review— Master Trail and Sidewalk Plan updated 2024— Review for 2024 Street Maintenance Projects D. Review— Parks Capital Project Plan 2024 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Eagle Scout— Blue Bird Houses B. Park Master Plan ' C. Silver View Park Storm Water Pond- Draft Upland Management Plan D. Inclusive Playground Offer 9. COMMISSIONER REPORTS 10. REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS /OTHER BUSINESS 11. Next Regular Commission Meeting: March 28, 2024 12. ADJOURNMENT PARKS AND RECREATION AND FORESTRY COMMISSION 6:30 P.M. I JANUARY 25, 2024 I MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL MOUNDS VIEW MEETING MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER @ 6:30 p.m. 2. SPECIAL BUSINESS A. Oath of Office for Re-Appointed Commissioner Arel by Don Peterson B. Oath of office for Re-Appointed Commissioner Wake Wiesner by Don Peterson C. Vote on Commission Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary Motion to nominate Gerald Arel as Chair, Laura Wake Wiesner as Vice Chair, and Cindy Palm as Secretary by Lundberg, second by Lillemo. Motion passes 6-0. 3. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Anderson, Arel, Lillemo, Lunberg Palm, Mills,Wake Wiesner Staff: Peterson I Thomas *to be absent 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion to approve with agenda item 9a to be deferred until next month by Mills, second by Wake Wiesner. Motion passes 6-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve by Lillemo, Second by Anderson. Motion passes 6-0. 6. PUBLIC INPUT Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight's agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name and address. Please limit your comments to three minutes. 7. STAFF REPORTS A. Parks and Recreation: Andy Community center has added staff: facilities maintenance and a part time custodian. New fitness equipment arrived today- a functional trainer and a flat bench and new dumbbell racks. There's been a lot more traffic in the weight area so more pieces have been added. YEAR IN REVIEW-see packet-Added bag toss to adult sports Biggest growth: explore more camp and rec leagues. New for the year: hag toss tournament for festival in the park. Last year was a big push for memberships and the reports for membership numbers from 2022 to 2023 reflect that. Youth specifically had 177 memberships in 2022 and 3943 in 2023. Future events: Valentines bingo and St Patricks day bash Also new: planning a penny carnival at festival on Friday night on festival.The 5K will not be offered this year. Field reservations start in February. Ice rinks officially opened last week, and will probably close this weekend for the season due to weather. In December there were social media posts featuring an elf that traveled to different parks and around the community center. Groveland rentals have been blocked off intermittently for use for water meter replacement, but that has not been completed. B. PublicWorks—Don Flooding of rink is short lived- again, due to unusually warm weather. Maintenance on buildings- see packet. City arborist has been working on getting the marked tree inventory down. There is projected to be a lot of trees next year that will still have to come down (ash and oak) due to disease. Buckthorn removal has also been happening at Silver View. Most of the removed buckthorn will be burned, as Ramsey county is restricting what cities can bring in to disposal site-the disposal sites are overwhelmed with ash trees. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Ball Field Improvements: City Hall, Greenfield and Silver View Parks Staff came back with projected costs for dug outs at silver view park, city hall park, sidelines for city hall and silver view, and a plated enclosure for storage. Bleachers at City Hall would need to be moved (to behind home plate) for the placement of the dug outs. Mike Hanson IBL president: please look at these improvements as an investment in use for the kids (of IBL) and residents. Silver View is most important for dug outs and fencing so IBL can have multiple games at the same time- right now the lack of fencing makes it unsafe. IBL received a donation for a shed and wants to pay for a shed at Silver View. The MN Twins grant deadline is March 1St. The Twins grant requires specifics. It doesn't include resurfacing grass or turf, and is specific to items like fencing and maintenance/safety issues. Motion to recommend to council to install sideline fences at City Hall and Silver View parks and dug outs and enclosure at Silver View, and to have staff apply for the Twins grant in hopes to defray some cost by Wake Weisner, second by Lundberg. Motion passes 6-0. Councilmember Meelhouse: special projects: brought up the question on whether the budget for the challenge course could be used for ball field improvements, but there is a question of whether the challenge course actually has that budget available. Pitching mound at Greenfield park: staff is trying to find someone that can build a pitching mound, so is still waiting to find a price. B. Ga Ga Ball Pit Location At park tour in May of 2023, there was a suggestion of adding a Ga Ga Ball Pit at Groveland. Staff received projected cost for 26' GaGa Ball Pit at$3,410. Ga Ga Pit can not be installed on asphalt, and woodchips can become problematic. Natural turf works best-grass wears down and turns to dirt. Motion by Wake Weisner to have staff purchase GaGa Ball Pit and install at Groveland Park in Southeastern corner, second by Lundberg. Motion passes 6-0. C. Restroom Signs at Park Buildings City administrator is bringing to city council. Splash pad currently has gender neutral restroom. Silver View has restrooms with multiple stalls so those restrooms would not be considered; the goal is to focus on changing designations of single stall restrooms to gender neutral. Council will look at further. 9. NEW BUSINESS A. Eagle Scout Candidate—Blue Bird Houses—deferred until February B. Tribute Park—Presentation: Concept for Tribute park presented. Tribute park is proposed to be at City Hall. It is a proposed winding path with granite slabs on the sides for police, firefighter, ems, and the three local tragedies (tornado, pipeline and 35W bridge), the center is a circle with granite slabs for the different branches of military service. Lights around the circle and along the trail with led lights that can be change color for different anniversaries or events. There would be pavers on either side of the path with the option to purchase in honor of service member. There is also an opportunity for people to place a bench. Estimated cost of project is 339,162; paver sales ($250 each for 450 pavers) are estimated to bring in 81,000 which would defray the cost to 258,162. There are two separate informational meetings scheduled for January 31. Following those, in February-March there will be time for public comment and a survey. The survey will be available both online and paper copies. The hope is for a completion date of November in time of Veterans day, with the acknowledgement that it is an aggressive timeline. If there is a business or group that would like to be donate-there will be a thank you plaque in City Hall to give the business recognition but keep it a separate space. Question from Wake Wiesner- is there a list of mounds view police/fire that have died in the line of duty that we could make sure are honored. Councilmember Meelhouse: Mounds View has never lost a police officer in the line of duty. Fire department may have a list of history. C. Review—Master Trail and Sidewalk Plan updated 2024— Review for 2024 Street Maintenance Projects See packet for projected sidewalks. There is a new parking lot proposed under the water tower. After the parking lot is finished, then more parking will be added in front of the splash pad and a sidewalk will be added. Also looking at including a trail into city hall park from Mounds View Blvd-this would be part of the tribute park plan. Ardan park-trail system- not mentioned in packet, but staff is looking at adding a trail system; dredging is still happening soon. D. Review—Parks Capital Project Plan 2024 Park improvement plan budget sheet: City Council will be going through a proposal from WSB engineering on a parks master plan-to look at how to fund projects. There are some grants that can be obtained to fund parks projects, but most grants require a park master plan. Homework for commissioners- look over and project plans see If there's things we want to discuss. 10. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Lundberg: recognizing neighboring New Brighton for Brave the BRR and Bartz Brothers Snow Sculpture. Go see it before it melts! Are!: please look at the list of tasks/project updates. 11. REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS /OTHER BUSINESS Lundberg: local girl scout troop is interested in community garden. They are interested in building the plot/pay for the materials. They are hoping to build a garden space and to maintain a garden to grow vegetables to donate produce to Ralph Reeder. 12. Next '-:egular Commission Meeting: February 22, 2024 13. Adjournment: 8:06pm Item No. 6A egt24 MOuNDIEW PARKS& RECREATION MEMORANDUM To: Parks & Recreation & Forestry Commissioners From: Andy Thomas- Parks & Recreation Superintendent Date: February 22nd, 2024 RE: Parks & Recreation Staff Report The following is a synopsis of recent activities and events of the Parks & Recreation Department. Building &Operations • Staffing -Summer Seasonal positions are posted • Fitness Center - it A Ai 0,..; ---- -> . ';',4k, '''''. , _ .,---.7. , . IV' 1 - x---;411 ' ilarvilii01,11'11,'11 / i 7 ijiPa ..._ . _ __ *-11; 1 „ -li -=-• ------'---' " : -- 'It° --1----7.--:Ill! -- t /.`� yea , � "5, Programs • Spring/Summer brochure mailed out last week • Summer Explore More o Registration opened February 2nd— 120 weeks registrations YTD • Summer Youth Leagues registration open-30 registrations YTD • 3 on 3 Middle School basketball tournament- March 14th Rentals • Field Reservations o Opened Feb. 1st o MVI Lacrosse- Reserved Oakwood & Silver View • Event Center o Reservations now available 2 years in advance o No Saturdays available until November o 50% of Fridays and Sundays are booked June-August 1 1 , Parks& Recreation Staff Report Reports Revenue 2024 YTD 2023 YTD Park Rental $ 4,235.00 $ 4,505.00 Recreation Programs $ 16,392.00 $ 12,998.00 Event Center $ 24,002.00 $ 19,741.00 Gym & Meeting Rental $ 6,584.00 $ 3,700.00 Open Gym $ 11,981.00 $ 9,129.00 Total $ 63,194.00 $ 50,073.00 Admission 2024 YTD 2023 YTD Daily 1552 1337 Membership 2288 1526 Community Events • Valentine's Bingo — 100+ participants • St Patrick's Day Bash — March 17th 3p - 6pm 2JPage Item No. 6B MEMORANDUM MOUNDS �EW PUBLIC WORK S To: Parks & Recreation & Forestry Commissioners From: Pete Szurek— Public Works Superintendent Date: February 21,2024 RE: Public Works Staff Report The following is a synopsis of recent activities and events of the Public Works Department. Staff worked on the following items since February 1, 2024; Parks Maintenance • Ice rink flooding each morning M-F pending weather and holidays. Stopped flooding first week of February 2024 • Trash and litter pick up along Mounds View Dr. trails • Parts ordering for Splash Pad • Splash chemical room: shelving install, tank hook ups, fan installation, air exchange installation, water pipe plumbing & installation, eye wash installation. • Hauling park pruning debris • Three controlled buckthorn and dead fall burns at Silverview Park • Around 63,000 square feet of buckthorn and deadfall cleared at Silverview • Spring turf management meetings and chemical ordering • Spring supply ordering • Education and training Forestry Staff worked on the following items this last month: • Resident phone consults and site visits, daily • Contractor meets and calls • Buckthorn removal at Silverview Park West of the soccer field. • Some boulevard pruning • Controlled burn piles monitoring • Down to 5 properties not removing marked 2023 diseased trees • Education training 11Page ,n. Public Works Staff Report The following is the List of Parks and projects/ maintenance activities ongoing or planned this year. Current updates are in black text, and updates from the previous two month period are inj{W,v. Ardan Park • 2nd ditch clean out early winter/fall 2024 City Hall Campus: • New grill installation on the West side of the West pavilion, summer 2024 • Repair the drinking fountain near the old playground site 2024 Groveland Park: • Trash pick up Greenfield Park: • Trash pick up • Merry go round install March 2024 • Benches and other play equipment installation March 2024 Hillview Park: • Trash pick up • Wood chipping and bush removal around building March 2024 Lambert Park • Trash litter pick up • Rubber matting removal and storage Oakwood Park • Trash and litter pickup Random Park: • Some additional landscaping to be done 2024 • Moving of the basketball hoop to the south side of the court, 2024 Silver View Park • Trash pickup • Buck thorn removal • Diseased tree removals • Brush pile burning Woodcrest Park • Trash/ litter pickup • 21 Page Public Works Staff Report Community Center, Public Works Shop and City Hall Greenspaces • Trash and lifter pick up Silverview buckthorn and deadfall burning February, 2024, From left to right: Kris Paulseth (City Arborist), Ben Geisbauer(Parks Worker),and Chris Atkinson(Parks Lead Worker) • y, t ' , f: w ryr y ik, t . • ve,... , , :,/ . .. .. ..... „. .. ‘ 4 + L' , 3i .r- - i -.-VI„g-;g.-- . , • c, ` 3 1 , _ Item: 7A 44 MOUNDS VIEW PUBLIC WORKS • PARKS&RECREATION MEMORANDUM To: Parks & Recreation & Forestry Commissioners From: Don Peterson - Director of Public Works/Parks and Recreation Date: February 22, 2024 RE: Irondale Baseball League suggested field improvements at City Hall and Silverview Parks Discussion/ Background The Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission was advised of field improvements requested by Irondale baseball League (IBL). At the January 25, 2024 Commission meeting the Commission voted to moved forward with the improvements at Silver View fields. Since this Commission meeting and in working with WSB Engineering Staff has learned that WSB in conjunction with the Parks Master Plan would like the City to consider the re-alignment of the South Ball Field. This re-alignment would move the field in order to eliminate the crossing of the outfields of both fields 1 and 2 from crossing and correcting a player safety concern. Staff is bringing this back to the Commission to consider making the field improvements at the City Hall ball field instead of Silver View Park at this time. Cost for the field improvements at City Hall are as follows: 1) Sideline fencing extending 60' - $3,450.00 2) Dugouts with metal roofing - $46,950.00 3) Concrete Work- dugout, bleacher and sidewalks - $20,000.00 (estimated) Total- $70,400.00 Staff is requesting the commission review and provide staff further direction. Respectfully submitted, C-Z-41,4- 7...€ 451.-1----1/4-____ Don Peterson Director of Public Works/Parks and Recreation Item: 7B 41 MOUNDS VIEW PUBLIC WORKS • PARKS&RECREATION MEMORANDUM To: Parks & Recreation & Forestry Commissioners From: Don Peterson — Director of Public Works/Parks and Recreation Date: February 22, 2024 RE: Greenfield Park- Baseball Field - Pitching Mound Discussion/ Background The Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission was advised of field improvements requested by Irondale baseball League (IBL). At the January 25, 2024 Commission meeting the Commission requested Public Works Staff to provide costs estimates for installing a Clay Pitching Mound at Greenfield Park. Staff has received the following cost estimate for installing a clay mound at Greenfield Park: 1) Material $2,020.97 2) Installation and building of mound $1,500.00 3) New Cover $500.00 4) Miscellaneous— new hose, plumbing in building $400.00 Total- $4,420.97 Staff is requesting the commission review and provide staff further direction. Respectfully submitted, Lerg Don Peterson Director of Public Works/Parks and Recreation Bid Bill To: 7B 46 SiteOne City Of Mounds View(#813063) LANDSCAPE SUPPLY Stronger Together 2401 Highway 10 Ham Lake MN#227 Mounds View,MN 55112-1429 15840 Central Ave NE W:(763)717-4000 Ham Lake,MN 55304-5615 Ship To: W:(763)413-7000 City Of Mounds View(#813063) Created Quote# Due Date Expected Award Date Expiration Date 2401 Highway 10 02/21/2024 6792880 03/21/2024 03/21/2024 03/21/2024 Mounds View,MN 55112-1429 W:(763)717-4000 Printed Job Name Job Description Job Start Date 02/21/2024 09:12:00 03/21/2024 I#e Item# ItemDesc Qty UOM Unix Extended 1 20-330 DuraEdge Black Stick Mound Clay 50 lb.Bag 80 EA 23.798 1,903.84 2 24-610 DuraEdge Fairball Infield Conditioner(Calcined Clay)40 In.Bag 10\ BG 11.713 117.13 Total Price: $ 2,020.97 Quoted price is for material only.Applicable sales taxwill be charged when invoiced.Ail product and pricing information is based on the latest information available and is subject to change without notice or obligation. Local tax may differ based on locations and local codes. Pi # i :! 111 .11'II{ Ili ,fI r It ► 7,1* ; •ff I'f I it , , �' f ``_• • w r! P!" �.}ti 11"4"' I 1+'':� lac pf'itft' 7111(f(f.f f rtff rive;'; !Gi .. ! ♦ �Ir'� �jt.', .11a .., a r, r u.. ..,...yr". Ifff ; IIf ►t1 if , . / 1/efF1A� ,►.�'.f..�ilf-T�/J� �r'f/ � 1`1'► Nati It i > ;, .I P t If ti It I ,_1 / r r ; _. 1 1`I a 11 +\t'1'I If A (If CI ,�`•�lc'� '<<l ___ I,, I I 'I I' i Itf'-I 'I I '\ Olt/ +A. I I t t t ii'I I III, I IflhIA( 1 I'1'Irsfrt'#. jj ! It +(I '; "' `g*"! . q ":"(ve--,Af_i 14(12 ' �• p1, 07A,,.t-. STT GiY��f �P_�JQ�t�2 ,C RS 711 rfki7.0tiJE/A, b� om Y T/f t_Z--7*/7rYD nl AO--n/.F�� L. e-ATI®/J, /if__TG//T p L6p_ TOTAL: Le/ r> . Item: 7C 414 MOUNDS VIEW PUBLIC WORKS • PARKS&RE CREATION MEMORANDUM To: Park & Recreation & Forestry Commission From: Don Peterson — Director of Public Works/Parks and Recreation Date: February 22, 2024 RE: Master Trail and Sidewalk Plan Discussion/ Background The Commission reviews the master trail and sidewalk plan prior to any street reconstruction projects looking for gaps in the system and if trails or sidewalk should be included with the street projects. Staff has included with this memo the Proposed 2024 Street Projects along with the master trail and sidewalk plan. Staff is requested the Commission Review the material at the January 25, 2024 Commission Meeting and provide staff further direction. Respectfully submitted, .,.____ en..-4._ 7..eYe......„2,5.-,----__ Don Peterson Director of Public Works/Parks and Recreation MOUND rS VIEW Trailways System Master Plan--DRAFT 7C • 41.1 S • MOUND S EW Trallways System Master Plan Proposal Presented by the Parks and, Recreation and Forestry Commission FEBRUARY 2021, UPDATED & REDLINED, NOVEMBER 2023 1 MOUNDS 'IEW Trailways System Master Pao - DRAFT 7C Goals and Objectives In efforts to make this plan cost-effective, manageable and practical as possible, it does not propose a trailway on every city street, but does propose a systematic matrix of biking and walking accessibility to all areas of the City, making special provisions to provide access to schools, parks, business and civic areas. This plan also makes special efforts to link Mounds View neighborhoods with the trailway system. 1. Provide the highest level of safety practical to ensure the health and welfare of the pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist. a. Encourage compliance of traffic laws through applicable departments b. Develop and promote guidelines governing the appropriate use of the trailways system c. Establish a signage standard for trail use that minimizes potential conflicts among users d. Conform to existing Minnesota Department of Transportation engineering standards e. Minimize bicycles/pedestrian/motorist encounters by providing off-street trailways whenever economically possible f. Promote safe bicycling through publications, programs and events while assisting with the promotion of bicycle safety education through the City publications 2. Provide and maintain a trailways system to achieve a high recreation potential. a. Provide links between Ramsey County, Anoka County and neighboring cities' trailway systems b. Develop a trailways system as a recreational link between the existing City parks, and to promote a means of making the park property as well as recreational activities accessible to all City residents c. Provide a recreation opportunity for the family and individual d. Develop a system that would be suitable for short and long distance recreational use e. Utilize man-made or natural linear resources in order to take advantage of the scenic qualities in the City 2 MOUNIAIEW Trailways System Master Plan— DRAFT 7C Goals and Objectives (Continued) 3. Provide and maintain a trailways system that can be used as an alternate transportation mode. a. Encourage application for grants and funding aid for trailway projects b. Promote a system to provide access to local points of destination such as civic centers, businesses, schools and libraries c. Promote a system that would provide an efficient means of destination orientation traffic d. Connect the trailways system with existing and future mass transportation systems e. Encourage the development of secure bicycle parking opportunities at existing commercial and industrial developments f. Advocate safe trailways through communication of requests and needs to roadway owners including Ramsey County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation 4. Publicize trail use opportunities in the community. a. Encourage citizen involvement through the specific trailway planning activities b. Provide and maintain trailway map in City parks and recreation publications c. Support and encourage the community in the development of a trailways system References: The following documents are inputs to and provide guidance to this Trailways System Master Plan proposal: • City of Mounds View Trailways Proposal — May 1992, Presented by Trailways Advocacy Group • Mounds View Comprehensive Plan — 2008, 2018 • MN/DoT Bikeway Facility Design Manual — March 2007, Chapters 2, 3 and 5 3 MOUNDSVIEW Trailways System Master Plan— DRAFT 7C Trailways Connections Anoka County Connections The Mounds View Trailway System links to the Rice Creek North Regional Trail. The Rice Creek North Regional Trail begins at the Long Lake Regional Park in New Brighton, connecting with Mounds View. Upon completion of the Mounds View BLVD (MV BLVD) and County Road H intersection reconstruction, the trail will be completed through the Twin City Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP), Arden Hills and Shoreview in Ramsey County, then north east through Anoka County to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Preserve ending in Centerville. The Mounds View Trailway System links to the Rice Creek West Regional Trail which continues west to Fridley in Anoka County, ultimately connecting to the Mississippi River trail. The combined Rice Creek North and West Regional Trails will present a long contiguous trail of beautiful scenic areas. The trail is a joint effort between Anoka and Ramsey Counties. Ramsey County Connections The Cities of Shoreview and Arden Hills have developed and continue to expand upon their trailways systems. Mounds View links to these neighboring trailway systems east along County Road I and 85th Ave/County Road J. The main trailways are along Hodgson Road/Rice Street, Lexington Avenue and Highway 96. Ramsey County trail connections include a route to downtown St. Paul. Minneapolis Connections Mounds View also has links to trailways leading to downtown Minneapolis via Silver Lake Road, to County Road D, entering the City of St. Anthony and connecting to Highway 88. At this point, many routes to downtown Minneapolis can be pursued along residential routes. 4 MOUNDSIYIEW Trailways System Master Plan— DRAFT 7C Trailway Connections (Continued) Shoreview Connections The City of Mounds View currently has an established connection to Shoreview with the trail along County Road I. Another connection which could become a reality in the future is along County Road J. The City of Blaine has a right-of-way along the north side of County Road J. New Brighton Connections Trailway connections to the City of New Brighton are offered on along Long Lake Road and Silver Lake Road. Old Highway 8 provides opportunities to complete a connection to Long Lake Regional Park. Fridley Connections The City of Mounds View connects to the Fridley trailway system along County Road H, County Road H2 and County Road I. Spring Lake Park The trail way along Mounds View Blvd south is now complete from County Rd H to Spring Lake Rd. Additional trail way is needed from Spring Lake Rd to Pleasant View Dr to complete the connection along the entirety of Mounds View Blvd. A connection from the existing trail system to Lakeside Park is needed along Hillview Rd. Blaine Connections The trail way along the north side of Long Lake Rd, from Eastwood Rd to 93rd Ln, connects to Blaine's trail system. The future may offer opportunities to increase trail way linkages with Mounds View and Blaine on CR J. 5 MOUND 'IEW Trailways System Master plan— DRAFT 7C Mounds View Trail Way System Arterial Routes The following routes play an integral role in the Mounds View trail way system, serving as arteries for connecting streets and linking to other trailway systems. North / South Routes East / West Routes • Edgewood Drive • County Road J • Mounds View Blvd • Long Lake Road • Arden Avenue • County Road H2 • Silver Lake Road/Red Oak Drive • Hillview Road • County Road H • Spring Lake Road • County Road I • Quincy Street 6 4 C As of,1/24/2024 _ Ex's Pedestrian/Bike System L 85711 NE NE - LOEG Lsw ,ssss ss ts�tl ` r � i � [ ii IEl C I } 0 c °.I �� 3 ii Ij ��o 6t t-- ----, YR i ' ' ti - G Z iP ii i . ':: 0 1,000 2:000 Feet Ti a- CS =I( {) 'In: �� �1i �� vs VI dao ; 7. , tb "41446444'' if441437att‘l--914-t---- --.'": v.F Ii. v OR 11"°1:413:43411(211111_7:-;—'1'...3:1' i i. 7...:::''.-'7'1' :i: 2 I ,1 W c ? RE4f£bDUL f ` � � j, -�: ss=L�ss�slat _ /' S - L ? W a e- l5 I 1', MINIM Dit i' :_:, ... ,:,G a - -- - N . • V . raa`=� 'z / , 14iteit.;1. ^. lc z • 1.1� --,, /i '' fit t C 3 y se 1 L ;t'b�ti✓ s — _I 1 �., arm. '`st. - z• t' • `I r:° Zi z "t t : ;l .I- =•. G31.314'TY 'ifia s sat- -ss I e IAt iSIE MME• d Z--,,- c•.. c CIfARl7Cw/Y1 I •_....�: 5 -� . 9 1 ci' if : e 1 ci III �. i • .-- BO'IIfl G ' cqS 1 z. A I ,.. sai ‘ J . ,.. .., >„1 sssssst aacs 7s c + - cE___114 4 .,, .0,7,,,, „, , • ......p. . .., , 11_ •, ____, �fbi I .., �� i ,� ss mm. , . ... , , l.s ssss l aims ssisssa' • �•••., CratKTy WAD 1-i W 11-090501 l` :` —Sidewalk,EXISTING —Formal Crossing,EXISTING Lri ms+o TT nu 41 !t Wi ,� ; s F Sidewalk PLANNED Striped Shoulder,EXISTING m=Sidewalk,PROPOSED Striped Sho lderPLANNED II F)1S E.p1 .1..,..______J/J- . . Trail,EXISTING PedeslfianGap ��. is s.a Trail,PLANNED Gap Typetiror .a! - c r Trail PROPOSED -- Bicycle {t p . --Foolpalh,EXISTING ,Bicycle-Pedestrian `�`_ MUSTANG DR . ' Bike Lane,EXISTING ()Pedestrian �' j' Informal Crossing or `,, Connector,EXISTING V A MOUND 1EW Trailways System Master Plan— DRAFT 7C Priorities The following are identified as priorities based on needed completion of a key existing trailway routes per the Detail Plan section herein: • Mounds View BLVD — Gap: Unpaved section along the north side from Spring Lake Rd to Pleasant View Dr. Completion of this remaining stretch will fully link neighborhoods, civic sites, commercial sites and multiple senior and assisted living facilities within the and City. • Long Lake Road — Gaps: North end west from 93rd Ln to Groveland Rd has no controlled walk/bike features. Completion of this section provides a continuous south-to-north trail way on this route. • Co Rd H —Gap: No north side walkway from Silver Lake Rd to Edgewood Dr. This stretch supports access to Edgewood, Irondale and Sunnyside schools located on both sides of Co Rd H. The school district would need to initiate the grant applications to fund construction through the state or federal Safe Routes to School Programs. Grants & Funding- Safe Routes to School - MnDOT (state.mn.us) Safe Routes to School Programs I US Department of Transportation • Co Rd I - Gap: No on street striped biking lanes from Long Lake Rd to west end, requiring bikes to use sidewalks between Long Lake Rd and Silver Lake Rd. Sidewalk only on south side from Silver Lake Road to Long Lake Road crossing MV BLVD. This stretch supports access to Silver View Park, multiple senior and assisted living facilities and commercial sites Beyond these priorities, implementation, completion, repair and/or maintenance of trailways should be coordinated when possible with other City or County infrastructure projects. 8 MOUNDS IEW Trailways System Master Plan — DRAET 7C Detail Plan The following Detail Plan defines the existing and proposed formal trailways through the City of Mounds View. It presents the proposed BW/WW use, and the use Status, Gaps and Plan. The focus of the formal trailways is to connect with landmarks and regional trailways, and in some instances, neighborhoods with trailways. Landmarks are defined as Mounds View parks, civic and local educational facilities. Although not a direct consideration, current bus routes are well served by this proposal. Definitions: The following are general definitions of terms used hereafter in this document: • Trailways - Encompass Bikeways and Walkways • Bikeway (BW) — Paved, no or limited conflict with street parking, integrated crosswalks, clear path with visibility consistent with speed, continuous and maintained. On or Off street, 5-10' wide. Identified on a map and/or marked with signage. • Walkway (WW) — Paved, integrated crosswalks, clear path with visibility consistent with speed, continuous, maintained, with potential shared usage with pedestrians. Off street, 4' wide minimum. Identified on a map and/or marked with signage. • Shared Use (SU) — Integrated BW and WW use through shared surfaces. Paved, no or limited conflict with street parking, integrated crosswalks, clear path with visibility consistent with speed, continuous and maintained. On or Off street, 5-10' wide. Identified on a map and/or marked with signage. 9 MOUNDSt4IEW Trailways System Master Plan— DRAFT 7C Detailed Plan — Continued Note:some map screenshots are rotated clockwise 90 degrees,see arrow for direction of north for proper orientation with each image Connecting Landmarks and Regional North/South Routes Use Prior-ity _ Trailways Status—Gaps- Pions Spring Lake Park Road SU • Connection to Lakeside Park Status:Striped 2' lane on west side,from CR H2 to CR I. H • Connection with Blaine trailway along CR MSA route north of MV Blvd and south of CR H2. Existing J/85th Ave SU trail way on west side from CR Ito Hillview Rd and MV Blvd to CR J Gap:No controlled walkway features from CR H2 to CR 1. No striped lanes North or South of CR H2 l'lan implement walk/bikeway feat', r'nm CR H2 to(h tr•, �, 4 ..,„. ! t .., ' i 11 v ,�; � � 4 r•*fin. i ii -* - jjj ., „ rF. �, 4 ~ Fj ( 4 I I ' . ,alp I 1 \s, ' • ` litss fX h cm R6'aft a se a=s lit-t Si•f*>s*Mb s SI! M!as a us• • Silver Lake Road—Red Oak Drive SU • Full North/South route: Connects Silver Status: Concrete sidewalk,on east side,from CR H, View and Woodcrest Parks through MV BLVD,continuing on Red Oak Dr to Hillview • Connection with Rice Creek trailway with Rd. Striped 8' lane on west side Hillview Rd to Long Lake Long Lake Park and the Mississippi River Road. MSA route north of MV BLVD(Red Oak Dr) trailway as destinations Gap:No controlled walk/bike features from Hillview Rd to • Connection with Blaine trailway along CR Long Lake Rd coinciding with bump outs J/85th Ave Llan_ Remove bump outs along west side and add a trail way from MV BLVD to Long Lake Rd, On the east side, add a',roomed sidewalk from Hillview Rd to Long Lake Rd to ling sidewalk)i, Hilh ,,to CR H L ,� ><,1 . �,� �¢ ,�._> Via: � • FA1Rl'llttU AVE _..•a.�a a:•s a a.s /pg „„:+r:,,►ii, 'c '.— --. ',:k \ s..„,.,' MIRCNIIU AVE OP ti-ionevi II, ',,, " e.mrta ,i:,.. ,..,—I/ s2\ ew .: LONGVIEW% ., -_ _ smonxtm RED OAK DR '1, /,A I high n 10 MOUND5EW Trailways System Master Plan— DRAFT 7C Long Lake Road SU • Full North/South route:Connects Random Status:Concrete sidewalk,on west side,from south end to H and Arden Parks and Irondale HS. Eastwood Dr. On street marked 8-10'wide striped lane, Connection with Rice Creek, Blaine and both sides,from CR H to CR H2 and CR Ito Eastwood New Brighton trailways,and with Long Gaps: No controlled walk/bikeway features from Lake Park and the Mississippi River Groveland Rd to 93id Ln trailway as destinations f'lun Planned future extension of trail way from Groveland Rd to 93'd Ln along north side, connecting to the existing Sidewalk along Groveland Rd. Plans would require approval from Blaine and Anoka County • e Edgewood Drive SU • Connects Edgewood MS,City Hall, City Status: Concrete sidewalk, east side,and 6-8'striped Hall Park, Police Station and Community lanes, both sides,from CR H to CR H2. Concrete sidewalk, Center west side,from CR H2 to MV BLVD,and both sides from MV BLVD to Bronson Ave, and back to west side from Bronson to CR I with 6-8' striped lanes, both sides,to CR I. MSA route from south border to CR I Gap:NA Plan:Future improvement of trail way with local street project and addition of formal trailway through wooded urea between CR I and Hillview Rd Ramsey County has in the 10-year CIP. Proposed trail way through wooded area would require a park commissions review to determine wetland area boundaries. •.•. •s10tt tC•!• • Sist-f5•ef 5.5.5f S•5•Cit.110.• is s lleiri oats WtaY•fY a•° EDGEWODD DR •YVNR W�IVH twr 41, 5 ODA* Ali fl 11 MOUND 'IEW Trailways System Master Plan DRAFT 7C Quincy Street SU • Connects Oakwood and Greenfield Parks, Status:Striped 6-10' lanes, both sides,from MV BLVD to Pinewood Elementary and industrial park Hillview Rd. Concrete sidewalk,on east side,from Hillview Rd to CR H2. MSA route along majority of length Gap:No sidewalk from MV BLVD to CR H2 Plan: Future implementation of sidewalk with local street project. Proposed sidewalk along east side of Quincy St from CR H2 to MV BLVD. i 4 / 4, i A : y fFp Y I/ o 0♦o v Y ti +$;• w ,yy�,� weiM ”wwa w w nwxa w wRww w ,o mt..•* Mw" q `v�„"� wwrw rr o wx*c B y y Y Y Y. , 4 E: , yyA�� vP' 0 Old Hwy 8 SU • Connects CR H to New Brighton trailway Status:Concrete sidewalk, west side,from CR H to south to Long Lake Park boarder Gap:NA l'laa"Maim, r.• Knollwood Dr WW • Connects from CR H to CR H2 Status: NA Gap:No controlled walkway to connect neighborhood to existing pedestrian system Plan Proposed sidewalk along east side of Knollwood Or '"+' " (RHtoLi?H2 . Twy w Y *` ht" ,§ : ya . � . ... 12 MOUNDSIYIEW Trailways System Master Plat*— DRAFT 7C Detailed Plan - Continued Prior Connecting Landmarks and Regional East/West Routes Use -ity Trailways Status—Gaps- Plans Co Rd J (85th) WW • Full East/West route Status:Sidewalk along north(Blaine)side of route • Connection to Blaine and Shoreview trailways Gap:No controlled walk/bike features along south (Mounds View)side of route along CR J/85th Ave Warr Future implementation of wuikway. Obtain right of way from Spring Lake Road to Cowl Sea on south side of route. (Future beyond 2024 in CIP). Proposed project must acquire approval from Anoka County, Ramsey County, and the state s ga p.a..r■s'a,w a'rb..aoaii*....amv rim - '.y ..� '� 1..�t a , .#4,...:1 44 1 I ..401,-. .tri M. Arden Avenue WW • Connects with Groveland and Arden Parks MSA route.Street reconstructed added sidewalk to north side and bike lane to south side from Spring Lake Rd to Long Lake Rd. Gap:N/A ,'nn A1H,nfu,n Hillview Road SU • Connects Hillview and Greenfield Parks Status:On street 4-8'wide lane, both sides,from Red Oak Dr to east end. Sidewalk on North side Quincy to Long Lake Road. MSA route along majority of length Gap:No controlled walking feature from Red Oak Dr to Long Lake Rd Plan. Ploposed sidewalk along north side to connect existing sidewalks at „.i r,,,rt „t,,;,, h'.'.1Oak Dr and Long Loki' Rrl ` 1 Q 7 I 1 HalwewPu I e� w P . , -� , ,� e' : N I .'C°' ,..4 �1...* 0* '}+ p S „• '1 ;,1 f. y� Ir :1 k a ^ 5` F k C / I F AC;1 13 MOUNDSIEW Trailways System Master Plan— DRAFT 7C Co Rd I SU • Full East/West route:Connects Silver View and Status: Sidewalk,on north side,from west end to Silver Lake Rd. Sidewalk H Lakeside Parks and Pinewood Elementary, changes to south side from Silver Lake Rd to Long Lake Rd. Sidewalk, both sides, including connection to Shoreview,TCAAP and from Long Lake Rd to Quincy St,then paved only north side to east end of city Fridley trailways boundary,connecting to Rice Creek Regional Trails • The stretch near CR10 passes senior and Gap:No on street striped biking lanes from Long Lake Rd to west end, requiring assisted living facilities and commercial sites bikes to use sidewalks. Sidewalk only on south side from Silver Lake Road to Long Lake Road crossing MV BLVD. i'f(nt M(/i, , ,-'ar:,rrlr,, ,niuuvt R1\ (iiVir (ntr'(,C(twri __... sty _ . ,. W. r l , - > 1 -1 co"....111.....---��--��� a,. A h 1 a Mounds View Blvd. SU • Full East/West route: Connects city civic area, Status: Paved trail ways along north side of route from CR H to Spring Lake Rd H retail business parks,high density and senior Gap:Unpaved section along the north side from Spring Lake Rd to Pleasant View housing Dr Pion Pursue grunt,unci use al(innuul budgeted(railway funds to Complete trailways on both sides a/c R10. Planned trail along north side from Sprang Lake Park to west end to complete trail way along MV BLVD. 2023-2024 bench 4.0.‘ 1 t ' y _i l i ' 111,::::),:c7t: — 4 ill)" cv Jv 1ey� t� +,+ ' ' r.. + 4 1.. '> rn�. ,,tit ?111, 0a„ It 14 Ln .4- H 0 r. L1 a1 >. co O wa c� -a= 3 Y -a Rt O C N o C N 9 t. L O p�$.,. LI 0 31 Y O0 v Y V R •^ R w •V` ' O C to R R ° z °o R C ° yoo y m = 0.1 a ° `� ar- a` W z E Q. ` 13 > o a Y ti ..� > -. 0 CC .11 {CC Tom, v °i " _ •L 0 A 13 Q y' �•o 1 , 1 , XII N V ,V M �. '. L y R) ^. ,4- -O -• W C ISR y L a) 1.4 Z i 3 O 0 N O -4 *- ' s.aa.. OL OL >. ` ,3 O8 0 > 0_ 44.4 o J +s ai a.) S ? _ 3 ? a • 44LO ' - s V1 v, O 1 l y .I5 4 OJ z L E it. y 0 o au, 0 t .0, 3 1 - . .� . 3 R f _ - 22 m a 0 Z 3 -A v, i avoissese a1 Sr i i A, y a1 - 165 0 aresimmis > 0 C f0 r Y co `. v Q . 11* 1 C 'L '7 C Y r _ C LU F� e O SD - C _. i N N -4-• /tom a-. 0 C N y cn C U aifY66 'F',3 C j >. -. _ W IO a1 _ra h'.. C R LL1 4,0 Y c 3 , fr, o cz o 1 .g. t - o C o co + E 1 001414, 3 I . -- ro ; f rs t t - it- MN 4 e N., , ....... ,- , 1 - ^ MOg I ti C ' - a- 0 CC U J\. MOUNDftEW Trailways System Master Plan— DRAFT 7C Woodcrest Dr WW • Full East/West route:Connection to Status:Complete—NA Woodcrest Park Gap:No controlled walkway to connect neighborhood to Woodcrest Park flan Pit,00,c(i so t!t'tvt,II, (JOIN' , " 1 t '.,t'St 1), NO/ri Knollwooll Pr to I I mg I, I a., , I ' :'4 11 a 1 ' ,. ..... . - , t 11 11.10041CINEST DO 0 0 I 77- ) ‘ 'LI ,.. . ' 4. '''' ,. i . • ' 1 . ... . .. . , % L a N 1 ! lit 41 4t1 or"e.ro"Into r me ti....ir 4 44....4 rt 44 4 at 4.4...4.4114 a 4,444 ...11.4.."'•"'''''''''1.".."41"'" • 't r 41 1.1, ona.mmast.Mmtibm.alw10114.8.maiworso,otomemok.iii, V t 1,. . it i r .. r 4A......... ... : t ‘ ., 4 i , . i .. I . .. . v } 4:.r,,.....,,,, ' yr..... — .=.___......... ,.....-- I I I , t ,. ... ......... 1 a a / %twines,Di J ,... 1 L, I 1 t " , k`t ° 4 i .4. 4, fr ,, Should the proposed sidewalk extend from Silver Lake Rd to Bona Rd to connect the park to the middle school? 16 MOUNDSIYIEW Trailways System Master Plan— DRAFT 7C Detailed Plan - Continued Prior Park Trailways Use -ity Connecting Landmarks and Trailways Status—Gaps- Plans Silver View Park SU • Connects with Long Lake Rd,Silver Lake Rd,CR Status:Complete—Paved H and I trailways Gap:From County Road I into Park—pedestrians must use driveway/road to access park facilities Plan:Proposed trail to connect(R I sidewalk to existing trail system, dugout, vnllr'ytall rrr,rt and basketball cowl. t r '11?A compliance • rassaa-assasssas• • '4.1'.**4■••••••00°C) i ••s•-ea.X-••#ft.�. 41•4646 a••• • •• ••ie •s • Greenfield Park WW • Connects with Hillview Rd and Quincy St Status:Trail way is a mix of paved and gravel trailways and Oakwood Park Gap:Gravel portions not conducive to biking. � Plan Maintain Ardan Park WW • Connect with Long Lake Rd and Arden Ave Status:Walkway exists from Long Lake Road along sound wall,through park and trailways back to Long Lake Rd • Connection with Blaine trailway along CR J/ Gap:Improvements needed to encourage use 85th Ave Plan: future improvement to gravel or implement paved walkway. Proposed[rail connecting existing sidewalk on the intersection of Long Lake Rd and Eastwood Dr to lanai Or 17 0 N 1 c4 Q• cf.- re A 2 • y r _ _ `; • 1 1 . 7 ' ..:e s:ns zs.saae.=. ax•a.o.zxl lf ar" a. _. .9 4 @ `��+� .g - "�;�'�`:its � I • 9�� TI - CO w' Z. . 4 `w r 4 } r ' .. -' in '�, wl *a Q. c :-1..' A 'it' 124' 1,4it$'-, '&:'..%-r„.1 clis-',,,i.', , .6„; - vc.: ., ..,„,":„,„4,:,,,,, ., : , ..„.-_, , ,,,,,i40100, ..,„,,....--,-,-,.- , ., - - ,i .... , -0 -A-- . - - t i MOUNDS VIEW Trailways System Master plea— DRAFT 7C Woodcrest Park WW • Connect with Silver Lake Rd trailway Status:Complete–Gravel Gap:NA Plan Maintui+ Lakeside Park SU • Connect with Spring Lake Rd trail way Status:Complete–NA Gap:No controlled walk/bike features along Hillview Rd to connect Lakeside Park to the existing Spring Lake Rd trail way Plan:Proposed shared use trail along the south side of Hillview Rd from Spring I 4 I uke Rd to the ark entrance o .• rrrrr«Mr««.MYMrM.M1gj!wp w«N«r e.;. y � walikter ��I Lambert Park SU • Connect park with existing trail along Spring Status: Complete–NA Lake Rd Gap:No controlled walk/bike features along Jackson Dr and Lambert Ave to connect to park facilities to the city's Pedestrian/Bike System Plan. Proposed trod along the east side of Jar kson Dr and the south side of I unihrvr 1w to z ontw, r to I1Nnlh ,r Park's pedestrian facilities I.. . ' At: INti Dik a II " E tw : !!��'. .. i ADAMS ST , \ ■ w i 15 1 1 8 ..- I —. i QUINCY _.,_._.___ 19 MOUNDS1YIEW Trailways System Master Plan DRAFT 7C City Hall Park SU • Connect existing trails to trail ways along MV Status:Complete—Paved trail from Edgewood Dr connecting to the Splash Pad, BLVD the baseball field,the small picnic pavilion,and ending at the sidewalk along the City Hall building/parking lot Gap:No controlled walk/bike features connecting existing park trail to trail way along MV BLVD Mowll I'ti,14)',<'0 hull(1wO 1N(Pp,,., i'/)U(l)`.1 ilg iilr t,'W)ritlg hull to (tali wuy along I1/IV 141 t/I) , ,'I''':'i Itlhl 10 Ilit 1i11Ot't lrl, 011 i)I,Ri for ADA 4 ompllunLe 4 .- "Ilw'; • de 4IP, 0111 -4 14 A t.---L • Ns\#NININ44 4 , O 1 4,61 Moundsview Dr SU • Connect existing trails to trail ways along MV Status:Concrete sidewalk along south side of Moundsview Dr existing from CR Ito BLVD Long Lake Rd Gap:No controlled bike features tn,,,,l ;,;1 20 MOUND'IEW Trailways System Master Plan—DRAFT 7C Detailed Plan - Continued Connector Prior Trailways Use -ity Connecting Landmarks and Trailways Status—Gaps- Plat„ Pleasant View Court SU • Connects to Arden Ave trailway and Status:Complete—Paved to Spring Lake Road neighborhoods Gap:NA t'i,r, lh,,,rt+r„ Arden Ave to Laport WW • Connects Groveland Park,Arden Ave trailway Status:Complete—Paved, narrow walkway Drive to neighborhoods Gap:NA {'ion Mainrcjui Arden Avenue to WW • Connect Arden Ave trailway to neighborhoods Status:Currently a worn foot path Sherwood Gap:Does not exist Plan Proposed trail way on west side at Red Oak Dr and proposed sidewalk on east ;:: from long lake Rd to Hillvrr P , 8 y. as sr an tu aata Sas mit' ttSXfta ate aasi ' taito as ill Us Ial*•-i.•a a at!ata' tt -IM!• aNIret aest Itas 4 sataII RED OAK DR et as . s mg a. a ..w. .a-ac as at .a as as . aas as . .1111 ,101/41111114211 at as . a• as as a as s a at as as as as =a a. a `t as a• 0 i ...... _ 7 - .1,, , 4 ......3 .,,, g,,d D 44. - Lois Lane to Knoll WW • Connects neighborhoods Status:Complete-Paved Drive Gap:NA i'lan.Maintain 21. MOUNDS] '1EW Trailways System Master Plan— DRAFT 7C Hidden Hollow South WW • Connect CR H and H2 trail ways and Status:Currently a worn foot path to Hidden Hollow neighborhoods Gap:Does not exist North Wean:Proposed trail in easement i ,,!,•nding south of existing sidewalk along '�y ^.' """9�AJ,wA4�FPAB111AME�.'i! 1VI�Y4 11. 14, f 5 r l � ,�� k ��, i�y ++s�Wll `s. y .tea i NI%SNNOWN.CT Edgewood Drive to WW • Connects Edgewood MS, Edgewood Dr trail Status:Complete—Paved Bona Road way to neighborhoods Gap:NA Edgewood Drive- WW • Connect Edgewood Dr through wooded area Status:Currently a worn foot path North of CR Ito between CR I and Hillview Rd Gap: Trailway does not exist Hillview Rd Plan future implementation of paved trail way through wooded area between CR I and Hillview Rd Ramsey County has in the 10-year CIP. Proposed trail way through wooded area would require a park commissions review to determine wetland area s+ss.s. r srt . rMrsr.rsmsrssarrr*Milimsrsssis"Q,.l.�a6g6SJw VAr: EDGEWOOD DR R{7�+ r^ •5 1 RDA! et MV BLVD to SU • Connects MV BLVD trailway(north side)to the Status:Complete-Paved Community Center Community Center Gap:NA i'111i1 Nlllllfillfl 22 L� BLAINE_ _ N 7C .... LAIR ILD.— — — I 121ifI1 I1 ML NE le & 2 a 44,x 'o =maw °> I NO SCALE I Y I `g $ Op LAW IR CC Q CL i 1 1 L B LAI N E a ADAM AC La../ t ADM A! YNoy Q G °P PD 07 I —I I L.1f0Rf 0/1 G LAMM CR a U t\ N. SHC CD PL u$ AHit1000 $ RCAD MME LAW 1 ''IAS a o 1 CREEPle CLAM`LA DR C ; a q� ; 3 2 a Lawv `b W aa1PD LARe y I i CCRIRLL DMA lyyaer J 'nuwCA ROAD a MOTO RD Ct HILIA.lr_RD__J. 215 i g oM00ao OR 0 ORICCD rlg qCY1 n5 i CAKRDC 3 a CR * E OR y P,MACCD G !,4 g G 5 et memo am I I ?WA CO DR co $ ° Qt 4 a g I t J a'esr° II 'AR100Li ? N g ; 3s PauecR dl. , M J `- �y •3Yi 4 P c X12 Ln ' T `i 3 J]] DI.CREDR CRA MASON DIRK P 47A g a) P[R 1 DR ,,.i LMR MMC C om s ie smarm rams 6� 1, w I i CO RD la f� Co RD Y3 a in $ Lcu� a+¢ a 3 o CORM, A a mum 9 1 1 e�wxrr AvE @@ cwuvm.. AVE °z IN woC Mi DR 11 a OaOD.L1 DR s F J CDS i :.CCIUL' 0.i 'ACCD"; a op J qy 4 c R° % a R f` — ♦ _,..a I I aocLrncsr °;S OD=2131' Oft4, `._-- aa Z a - } m �I ! W srls.cums LA a B 'aa D� �1 O CO RD /1 _u co RD — R p",� -- N 'L B < . ti j �Ni T% E11 Q txnwE IA b a ti MOW Lea 1 111.00101011 SLS - IY'• I IAIL( Mou i v 2024FDR/Reconstruct `+ ‘ • STREET MAP lasr~°MC L I co RD d BLAINE co w + N 7C I�— - �— wa.p I I1 a a Ig 'Qs I } wtommo "a I NO SCALE a 3 g.. sato UDR NE B LAI N E — .w .x Q tWERT oft 011 auto 1 o N s a y $ oou IME I \ a. t31FFlI1N90 1 :OW E Of. I — V °" ti 9 a \ N!� 1111 1 � ,070 USE > .... .0. a i Ill'w. L'il mord g RC oc PROW r— g 00awt000 OR o 1 * it 0010000 M a i 1 7E"'C4 DR i 1 airw g g PII I 4t CR. I mg I OR zk ROMP� ' � . I 10014016 ORMI 6pNl QOM DDRAT 00' p4 t` r. a f 3 4 a 1 . S.--' VIER RE I�tpp.tbllR q. 1 i a. ca� g LI q_ Ce t aeMaa .a txr�w�n NI dP %N, IVOOOME CR 1 raw UM i i 44, i MOW DRIMAM . DR tip I a g a 1 gI — * z Ig 1100001151 OR °' z if a 1 i i i $ 40 . StIsawtr to MVO 1 Q N W W. --- N s X NEW B R I G HTO N d pyo CROWE LA..4!'i 'Q" staaur+t tic il I MV�l11�ILt3 r I I g et 2024 Mill & Overlaya 1 ' i STREET MAP MAMA A° OAK co RD , B L A I N E CO RD e N 70 rIDRD."-. IN¢ RD I g i g' mamma ‘ cr '4, NO SC*L[ REDO LAME RE d 1 WAY Ng I BLAINE iciWNW AVE Yf .Q GR' /D..2i \ UPDIPf m:LAFCAR DR e L,fVRf DR di'' 0 \N I SKIM= 9 1 RDA =ARE Old z a I a a lA1C£NP�4�� 6VNtFi'lK 0_ 1Na DR G i iyi q $ Il S 4 u 1 i - t S6 ADsra6 iARe3 g acn cc CCW aAM to >xLLwDe� Ro MOM/ RDA MIME) RD : a. O %CCD DR ga O 1 ! i g I g G Db(RDCD t DR R S oRxwcuu G DR N a� 9 aD�Jgd DR �` `p PM4lIWD g co CRt C 10 • %RDcRCR DR g $� PRRtlDDD DR. Xb _..... C. DR I GM '�I 3 a g ITDDDIP i 3 Y `ia� !R°RSDN DR. G C" 1I Y fl BELE LN it73-4\ 'Y ' 1110111014 ORR{ p0,� 6 BRCNSDN "Rl' N� et' 10 i 2 8S L+ P,vRD RAY A M` $ T- / kti I+DocPi A 3 SCalilD comf *,' L., � TT No Na 5 6 21 6 WORM AVE 8Q 1 a / a / core, j ,Rom, a CLPARNm /#4£ `y$7p 3 cLE%PIR�M MPo V1000/L 04 P RDGE OREL . RDDDME DR t/p y g g y�$ CDD 8 pR 1 J ,3y ugCDP4T 6R meow 2 $ 6.1 2 i I _ A _ RODDCR 3T C1* q g MODE BST °R q da "rat Z SPRINGVIER 1 fiscE w ' CO RD N i 03 RD R k NEW BRIGHTON C�,t % e 4 'BoR1Y Ig 4/405161101 LAW 1 Buc«edciur LANE4$ 11. MOOM)S41141EW 1 1 2024 Reclamite Street % STREET MAP 2024 Reclamite Trail f 1 Item: 7D MOUNDS MEW PUBLIC WORKS • PARKS&RECREATION MEMORANDUM To: Park & Recreation & Forestry Commission From: Don Peterson — Director of Public Works/Parks and recreation Date: February 22, 2024 RE: Park Improvement Plan (5 year CIP) Discussion/ Background The Commission reviews the Capital Park Improvement Plan on an annual basis to determine future Park Improvements. Staff has included with this memo the 5-year CIP along with the Commission's Park Improvement Plan Spreadsheet. Staff is requested the Commission review the material at eh January 25, 2024 Commission Meeting and provide staff further direction. Respectfully submitted, Don Peterson Director of Public Works/Parks :nd Recreation 7D I F Priority Rankii Year Planned E ffi 1 T. Estimated E -g 1— f a a 1 Cost of Line ,� aoj o� ea Park Park Amenities and Future Needs s m�, ,? Improvement L ;o � � N N N n N N >, No. 2 J C 0 0 0 0,o � ,.. _ ', cG a d �',N N N'N N�N,CD d C,.,E $ 001 0 -ADP,Ardan Park i_-_ L l I _i-- 002 0 ADP New Park Sign 1 5 L I - ,X MO _ - 003 0 ADP Improve Trial5 1 1 M X NE _ __ - 004 d Mno 0 ADP Aooi ades ana Benches" 1 2 3 L — X MO, -. 005 0 CHP;City Hall Park ( LL -ii_ ; 1_ 006 0 CHP,Irrigation&Landscaping Improvements-City Hall 1 3 2 M I 1 X,DO - I 007 0 CHP 1 I M' X W NE 008 0 ICHPConstruction of Band Shell 1 1 4 L I I ,X W 1 1 I i X MO - 009 0 CHP New Rest Roan endosure 3 H 010 0 CHRNew Park Sign ' 1 j 5 L ; t X I poi i - till.Mi ' I 1 � INE 011 0 CHR I Install new Trail from Mounds View Blvd.into P 2 1 H I - W II INE Replace-playground and splashpad equipment 1 I 1 I 4 L' 11 X W I - 012 0 CHPI, p P /9 P 013 0 CHP,Bike Rads,Benches,Trash Containers,Picnic Tables,etc.-City Hall P. 3 I H/M X I p01 I - 014 0 COMComrauaattj Center — 1 I I I t 1 I _ X 015 0 COM Fence in New Outdoor Garden area for Event Center 2 4 L I I NE!W I INE 016 0 GOA/Basketball Court Pavement Maintenance-Comm.Center 1 1 1 3 j 2 M ,X I w NEI - 018 0 COMAddition to the Building-New Locker rooms expand gym 2 3 1 M X 1 W - i- 1 019 0 CO b:sa d 1 1 M 1,X,D0 . - 020 0 COM,Bike Racks,Benches,Trash Containers,Picnic Tables,etc. - 3 3 H/M X'MO 021 0'GFP Greenfield Park ' II.-I I I _ _ I I—�_— 022 0 GFP 2 1 'M' X I . 1w SNE ;AM023 0 GFP Add Picnic Pavilion MI X I I — 1 NE . - 1 � I I ; I NE I 024 0 GFP Light Baseball Field , 1 5 LI 1I I XW - ! 025 0 I GFP New Rest Room endasure 3 M/ X p01 1 026 0IGFP,NewPark Sign 3 3 I XIMDO - I I I I MO 027 0 GFP Bike Rados,Benches,Trash.Containers,Picnic Tables,etc. Greenfield P. 2 1 I HI XD I 028 0 GFP Maintenance on Tennis and Basket Ball Court 1 I 2 3 L I I X NE I i 029 0 !,GLP'i Reconstruct Playground-Greenfield Park (new in 2023) I II H1 X MD0 1 - 031 I ON Room enclosure 2 3 1 IMI I i I € I k € 030 GLP MO I I X D i I 1 032 0 GLP Construct Irrigation System&Grading Improvements-Groveland Park 3 3 X MO -D I 033 10 GLP1 •.:_. &security canecasaniviti2 H I X W I' - I1 034 0 GLP New Park Sign ' 1 � 5 1 L' ( X W - I INE 035 0 GLPI Maintenance on Tennis and Basket Ball Court 1 1 2 3 L, J ,X I W ' 1 - 1 036 0 GLP1RehabPlayground 2 3 I 1 !MI 11 X, D0 1 036 0 GLP Pidde Ball Courts-West of shelter 2 3 1 .M 1 I X MD0 0381 0 GLP 1 1 IMI X 1 , INE I , i 1 1 1 i W' 7D 038 0 I HVPiHiltview Park t TErflI r l + 11 XINE 039 0 HVP Install Shelter Card Key Aooess& _,. 2 H 1 ' I W 040 0 HVPIConstruct Irrigation System&Grading Improvements-Hillview Park 3 3 I I r I X W j 041 0 I HVP Rest Room enclosure p III 11111.1 1 5 ILi IX W 042 0 HVP New Park Sign 2 2 2 , X MO i 043 I 0 HVP Reconstruct Playground(built in 2007) p 044 0 HVP Bike Racks,Benches,Trash Containers,Picnic T es; IVE P. 3 2 1 'M2 I X1 M0D , - 062 0`RDP Hodges Park(Random) -_!_ !�_[-J T( i k 0 1 063 0 IRDP' 2 4 lM ; I X i D rNE 064 0 RDP[Replace Interior Furniture-Random Park 1 5 IMI 1 ! X W1 I - 065 0 RDPRepIace Random Park Playground H, X I I p - I I — _ j r I IMO 066 0 RDP ter Card Key Access&Security Cameras-Random Park 3 2 1 I-1 X D 067 0 IRDPI New Park Sign 1 I 5 H X I X MO 067 - - jM0 f 068 ' 0 'RDPI Racks,Benches.Trash Containers,Picnic Tables,etc.- , 2 1 1 H' X I I p 046 • 0 LSP, Park — _. — - - — MO 047 0 LSPJPA with Spring lake Park ��� D 048 0`LBP LantbertPsk — ! ( T t T i_- LIIi M X M°I I I Hockey Rink Boards-Smaller Rink ' p 050 0 LBP! New Rest Room enclosure 2 3 ' 1 M I X MOI 1 I pi Y I 051 0 X D 1 5 L i IMO, 051 i I - LBP New Park Sign Ir i f 052 10 LBPI Install Additional Irrigation I 3 3 ,NIL i I I X MO - I - , NEI i D 054 10 LBP Replace Playground Equipment 1 I 1 4 L j i X W, 1 I MOI I I I 055 10 1 LBP meras-Lambert 5 1 H' X p 056 lC PWRreakwood Park — - X -' 057 0 1 GLP1 Reconstruct Playground-Oak Wood Park 2008 I 3 2 1M I I W I 1 I i SMO I 058 0 'GLP . _ M I �X1 p ; -I I , II I I i — I ' X 059 0 I GLPI New Park Sign _ -,- II , 060 1 H E I r i 1 5 L MO'.X 0 GLP replace soccer Nets ! I IW ; INE I I 061 0 'OWF Bike Rados,Benches,Trash Containers,Picnic Tables,etc.-Oakwood' 3 H i X I W 1 , 7D 069 0 SVP,Silver View Park 1 11 IT - _ rf 070 0 SVP Shelter Building Improvements-Silver View Park-Additional Seating/New Kit 5 1 H X W - 071 , 0 SVP New Rest Room enclosure 3 3 H I X I NE W 072 0 SVP Install Shelter Card Key Access&Security Cameras-Silver View Park 42.411 I 'H X DO 073 0 SVPre Racks,Benches,Trash Containers,Picnic Tables,etc.-Silver View P. 2 M X 0 . - 074 0 SVP;Replace/Rehab Playground 2 4 LI 1 I X W - 075 0 SVP New Parks signs 1 1 5 1 1-I i X W 076 0 SVP Install Balifield Lighting 2 4 L i X W - RE 077 0 SVP Install Volley Ball Court Lighting 2 4 L I X - 078 0 SVP Install New Trail from County Road I-North to existing trail system 2 3 1 M X W - 079 0 SVP Re-purpose Horse Shoe Pit area 2 3 1 IMI X WW- - 080 0 SVPI Trailway Lighting-Silver View Park 1 I 3 2 IMI � X NE 1 I - 1I I I I 1 081 0 SVP'Pickle Ball Courts-West of shelter X Ne - w 081 0_3FPF Greenfield Pak Preserve — j I E -_1-1_1__ -�--' ; C L 082 0 3FPF Construct Paved Trailway-Greenfield Park Preserve 1 2 3 L X W - 083 _0 WCP,WoodaestPark 1 I I 1 Li T T I L! ; t. 084 0 WCP 2 1 3 M, X NE - Replace Playground Equipment , W 081 0 W 2 IH, X W -i I I I l 082 1 0 WC Remove Playground Equipment 2 2 2 M i 1 X i W I I I Item No: 8C Meeting Date: February 22, 2022 MouNDs VIEw City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Parks & Recreation & Forestry Commission From: Don Peterson, Director of Public Works/Parks and Recreation Item Title/Subject: Storm Water Update; Silver View Park Storm Water Background/Discussion: The Public Works Department has many responsibilities and one is to efficiently operate and manage the storm water system. The system was first constructed in the 1970's and as with other similar core functions, research, innovation and best management practices have changed over the years. Below is an overview of the Silver View Storm Water Pond project- provided by Dan Edgerton of Stantec Services: Silver View Strom Water Pond: Data collection In-pond veg surveys are done Sediment coring is done. Sediment needs to be hauled to landfill. Water quality sampling is done Upland vegetation summary memo was completed and reviewed with Don Peterson Wetland delineation field work was completed. Report expected shortly so TEP can get out and review. Field survey is scheduled to be completed in the next couple of weeks, with a focus on potential BMP locations Public engagement Mtg#1 was held on Thursday, 9/21, 5 pm. Meeting summary was submitted to Don Mtg #2 to be held after preliminary plans and concepts complete Take the recommendations to the Park Commission early 202, before going to the City Council Have the second public meeting at a City Council meeting, early 2024 Permitting Wetland permitting will be prepared as needed, subject to BMP selection Alum treatment submittal(if needed) will be prepared and submitted to MPCA Water quality assessment and watershed analysis o Based on public meeting comments, will review existing and proposed HWL in ponds relative to adjacent properties Preliminary analysis of water quality and sediment data and pond modeling have been performed, indicating majority of phosphorus loading is from the watershed and not internal loading Aquatic plant data has been assessed, showing primarily coontail and water lilies. Based on this result, we may not be allowed to remove the water lilies or coontail, as they are not non-native. We will follow up with the MnDNR on this, after which we will discuss with Don Peterson. P8 modeling has been performed Technical memo still needs to be prepared. It will cover: Data collection, analysis and modeling, results and recommendations Alum dosing, Aquatic plant community management, Spot dredging BMP recommendations— structural and non-structural (within park setting) Mapping Upland vegetation recommendations memo not yet started. Will be based on City review of summary memo and public input. Will develop high-level recommendations and cost estimates. Will then review with Don Peterson. Specific implementation actions still to be determined but could include: Alum treatment Aquatic plant management Spot dredging Watershed improvements Upland vegetation management (plan sheets) to be prepared following review of upland recommendations memo Stantec has completed the field work and provided 60% plans for the Silver View Strom Water Pond Project. Staff has been meeting with Stantec to review the plans and working to prepare the plans for review by the Parks & Recreation & Forestry Commission and City Council After the Commission reviews the plans a Public Meeting will be held on March 11, 2024 at the City Council Meeting, part of the public outreach for this project. Recommendation: Staff is requesting the Commission review the information and provide Stantec and Staff with feedback and further direction. Respectfully submitted Don Peterson Director of Public Works / Parks and Recreation Attachments: Wetland Delineation Report Upland Vegetation Restoration Plan BMP Planting Approach Water Quality Assessment 8C Stantec Wetland Delineation Report Silver View Pond Restoration City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, MN Stantec Project#:193806465 Lead Delineator: Mason Steele October 26th 2023 Prepared for: Don Peterson, Director of Public Works/Parks and Recreation City of Mounds View 2401 Mounds View Boulevard Mounds View, MN 55112 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 733 Marquette Ave; Suite 1000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612)712-2000 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration OCTOBER 26,2023 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 METHODS 2 2.1 WETLANDS 2 3.0 RESULTS 3 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 3 3.2 CLIMATIC CONDITIONS 4 3.3 WETLANDS 4 3.3.1 Wetland 1 5 3.3.2 Wetland 2 5 3.3.3 Wetland 3 6 3.3.4 Wetland 4 6 3.3.5 Wetland 5 7 3.3.6 Wetland 6 7 3.3.7 Wetland 7 8 3.3.8 Wetland 8 9 3.4 UPLANDS 9 3.5 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 9 4.0 CONCLUSION 10 5.0 REFERENCES 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Soils Identified within the Study Area 3 Table 2. Summary of Wetlands Identified within the Study Area 4 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A FIGURES A APPENDIX B APT ANALYSIS B APPENDIX C WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS C APPENDIX D SITE PHOTOGRAPHS D WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration Introduction October 26, 2023 1 .0 INTRODUCTION Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) performed a wetland delineation of the Silver View Pond Restoration (the Project)on behalf of The City of Mounds View.The wetland delineation was led by Mason Steele of Stantec. The wetland delineation was completed between October 23-24, 2026. The Project is approximately 7.522 acres in size and located in Section 7, Township 30 North, Range 23 East, City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Specifically, the Study Area is located within the Silver View Park City Park northwest of the intersection of Silver Lake Rd and Osborne Rd NE (Appendix A, Figure 1).The purpose and objective of the on-site wetland determination and delineation was to identify the extent and spatial arrangement of wetlands within the Project. Wetland and waterways that are considered waters of the U.S. are subject to federal regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(CWA)and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and jurisdictional regulatory authority lies with the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency certifies that discharges of dredged or fill material authorized by a federal permit or license comply with state water quality standards under Section 401 of the CWA. Section 401 authorization is obtained by completing the Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota.The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) Public Waters Work Permit Program has regulatory over Minnesota Public Waters under MN Statute 103G and Rule 6115. Most wetlands in Minnesota that are not covered by the Public Waters Work Permit Program are covered by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act(WCA) Rules Chapter 6420 and administered by a Local Government Unit(LGU). LGUs can be a City, County, Watershed District, or Soil and Water Conservation District depending on project location. For this Study Area,the LGU is the City of Mounds View. Stantec recommends this report be submitted to the LGU and USACE for a for final jurisdictional review and concurrence. 1 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration Methods October 26, 2023 2.0 METHODS 2.1 WETLANDS Wetland delineations were based on the criteria and methods outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,Technical Report Y-87-1 (1987)and subsequent guidance documents(USACE 1991 a, 1991b, 1992), and applicable Regional Supplements to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. The wetland delineation involved the use of available resources to assist in the assessment such as U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, MNDNR Minnesota NWI Update mapping, MNDNR Protected/Public Waters mapping, and aerial photography. On-site wetland delineations were made using the three criteria (vegetation, soil, and hydrology) and technical approach defined in the USACE 1987 Manual and applicable Regional Supplement.According to procedures described in the 1987 Manual and applicable Regional Supplement, areas that under normal circumstances reflect a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology(e.g., inundated or saturated soils)are considered wetlands. As recent weather patterns influence the visibility and presence of some wetland hydrology indicators, the antecedent precipitation in the three months leading up to the field investigation was reviewed.The current year's precipitation data were compared to the most recent long-term (30-year) precipitation averages and standard deviation to determine if precipitation was normal, wet, or dry for the area using the Antecedent Precipitation Tool (APT)as developed by the USACE. Wetland boundaries were identified and flagged using pink"WETLAND DELINEATION"flags and wetland sample points were identified and flagged using lath with orange flagging tied to it. Both wetland boundaries and sample points were surveyed with a Global Positioning System (GPS) capable of sub-meter accuracy and mapped using Geographical Information System (GIS) software. 2 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration Results October 26, 2023 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The Project is comprised of Silver View City Park which is comprised of a wetland complex,a paved walking trail, and a maintained lawn. The Project consists of five separate areas across Silver View City Park. The Project is relatively flat, sloping towards the wetland complex in the center of the Project,from topographic highs of approximately 900 feet above mean sea level(amsl)on the northern area of the site to topographic lows in the southwestern portion of approximately 890 feet amsl. The Project is bordered by apartment complexes to the north and south; a residential neighborhood to the east; and Long Lake Rd to the west. Soils present within the Study Area and their hydric status are summarized in Table 1. Wetlands identified during the field investigation are located primarily within areas mapped as hydric or partially hydric soils and wetland indicator soils(Appendix A, Figure 2). Table 1.Summary of Soils Identified within the Study Area Soil Unit Soil symbol: Soil Unit Name Soil Unit Component Landform Hydric Component status Percentage 158B: Zimmerman fine sand, Zimmerman 80-95 Rises No 1 to 6 percent slopes Cantlin _ 2-11 Rises No Isanti-Drained 1-3 Flats, depressions Yes Lino 1-3 Swales No Soderville 1-3 Flats, rises No 540: Seelyeville muck Seelyeville 85 Depressions Yes Cathro 8 Depressions Yes Markey 7 Depressions Yes 543: Markey muck Markey 85 Depressions Yes Seelyeville 5 Depressions on Yes outwash plains Isanti 5 Depressions on Yes outwash plains Lino 5 — No 863: Urban land-Lino complex, 0 to 3 percent Urban land 65 Outwash plains No slopes Lino 35 Outwash plains No 1027: Udorthents, wet Udorthents-Wet 90 Moraines No substratum substratum Urban land 0-20 Outwash plains No 1039: Urban land Urban land 100 Moraines No The MNDNR Protected/Public Waters map identified a protected feature that is central to all five sections of the Project(Appendix A, Figure 3). The feature is identified as a protect wetland. The Minnesota National Wetlands Inventory Update(NWI) map identifies one wetland area within the Project which is central to all five of its sections and one wetland in the center of the west section 3 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration Results October 26,2023 (Appendix A, Figure 4). The field delineated wetlands(W02-W08)and the eastern wetland (W01)are all located within the same vicinity as wetlands identified on the NWI maps (Appendix A, Figure 5). 3.2 CLIMATIC CONDITIONS Average precipitation for the investigation area was obtained from by using the USACE Antecedent Precipitation Tool. A total of 15.22 inches of precipitation occurred in the three-month time period prior to the field investigation in 2023. Based on the APT analysis, conditions were normal (Appendix B). 3.3 WETLANDS Eight wetlands were identified and delineated within the Study Area. Wetland determination data forms were completed for 16 sample points along transects through the wetlands and adjacent uplands and are included in Appendix C. Photographs of the wetlands and adjacent lands are included in Appendix D. The wetland boundary and sample point locations are shown on Figure 5 (Appendix A). The wetlands are summarized in Table 2 below and described in detail in the following sections. Table 2. Summary of Wetlands Identified within the Study Area Wetland ID Observed Wetland Mapped NWI Adjacent Surface Acreage Type* Wetland Type Waters (on-site) Wetland 1 (W01) Wet meadow/Type 2 PEM1F None 0.15 /PEM1F Wetland 2(W02) Shallow Open Water/ PABH None 0.14 Type 5/PABH Wetland 3(W03) Shallow Open Water/ PABH None 0.21 Type 5/PABH Wetland 4(W04) Shallow Open Water/ PABH None 0.15 Type 5/PABH Wetland 5(W05) Shallow Open Water/ PABH None 0.12 Type 5/PABH Wetland 6(W06) Shallow Open Water/ PABH None 0.17 Type 5/PABH Shrub Swamp, Wetland 7(W07) Shallow Open Water/ PSS1C/PEM1C None 1.16 Type 6,Type 5/ PSS 1 C, PABH Hardwood Swamp, Wetland 8(W08) Shallow Open Water/ PF01C, PABH None 0.39 Type 7,Type 5/ PF01 C, PABH TOTAL 2.48 *Wetland type based on Eggers&Reed 2015/Circular 39(Shaw&Fredine 1971)/Cowardin 1979 4 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration Results October 26,2023 3.3.1 Wetland 1 Wetland 1 (W01) is a wet meadow community in the western section of the Project. W01 is connected to Wetland 2 (W02)via two culverts on the northwest and southeast ends (Appendix A, Figure 1). Dominant plant species identified at sample points completed within W01 consist of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea, FAC\)and Culver's root(Veronicastrum virginicum, FAC). Other common species identified in the wetland are listed on the data forms included in Appendix C. The dominant species within the wetland are comprised mostly of hydrophytic vegetation (OBL, FACW, and/or FAC) and meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The wetland appears to have a seasonally inundated/saturated hydroperiod within the center. No Primary Hydrology Indicators were observed. Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed included Geomorphic Position(D2)and a positive FAC-Neutral Test(D5).Therefore,the wetland hydrology criterion was met. Soils within the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Zimmerman fine sand and Seelyeville muck(Appendix A, Figure 2).The soils observed at the sample points were generally consistent with the Zimmerman series characteristics. Field indicators of hydric soil identified at sample point W01-1w consisted of NRCS field Indicator F6-Sandy Redox surface. Therefore,the hydric soil criterion was satisfied. The wetland boundary was determined based on distinct differences in vegetation, hydrology, soils, and topography consisting of the following: 1)Transition from a wet meadow wetland community dominated by reed canary grass to a mesic woodland upland community dominated by common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica, FAC), white oak (Quercus alba, FACU), and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia, FACU); and 2) Transition from an area exhibiting wetland hydrology indicators within the wetland to a lack of wetland hydrology indicators within the adjacent upland; and 3)Transition from soils exhibiting hydric soil indicators to soils lacking indicators of hydric soil conditions. The transition from wetland to upland characteristics generally correlated with a well-defined topographic break. 3.3.2 Wetland 2 Wetland 2 (W02) is a shallow open water community that is a part of a wetland complex which is central to all five sections of the Project. W02 is connected to W01 via a culvert on its western boundary. Most of the wetland is made up of the shallow open water community but the sample point was taken in a thin wetland fringe along the open water(Appendix A, Figure 1). Dominant plant species identified at sample points completed within W02 consist of sensitive fern(Onoclea sensibilis, FACW), boxelder (Acer negundo, FAC) and black willow (Salix nigra, OBL). Other common species identified in the wetland are listed on the data forms included in Appendix C.The dominant species within the wetland are comprised mostly of hydrophytic vegetation(OBL, FACW,and/or FAC)and meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The wetland appears to have a seasonally inundated/saturated hydroperiod within the center. No Primary Hydrology Indicators were observed. Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed included D2 and D5. Therefore,the wetland hydrology criterion was met. Soils within the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Seelyeville muck (Appendix A, Figure 2). The soils observed at the sample points were generally consistent with the Zimmerman series characteristics located adjacent to the soil unit. Field indicators of hydric soil identified at sample point W02-1w consisted of NRCS field Indicator Al 1-Depleted Below Dark Surface. Therefore, the hydric soil criterion was satisfied. 5 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration Results October 26, 2023 The wetland boundary was determined based on distinct differences in vegetation, hydrology, soils, and topography consisting of the following: 1) Transition from a shallow open water wetland community dominated by sensitive fern and black willow to a maintained lawn upland community dominated by Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis, FACU), garlic mustard (Alliana petiolate, FACU), and common buckthorn; 2) Transition from an area exhibiting wetland hydrology indicators within the wetland to a lack of wetland hydrology indicators within the adjacent upland;and 3)Transition from soils exhibiting hydric soil indicators to soils lacking indicators of hydric soil conditions. The transition from wetland to upland characteristics generally correlated with a well-defined topographic break. 3.3.3 Wetland 3 Wetland 3(W03) is a shallow open water community that is a part of a wetland complex which is central to all five sections of the Project. Most of the wetland is made up of the shallow open water community but the sample point was taken in a thin wetland fringe along the open water(Appendix A, Figure 1). Dominant plant species identified at sample points completed within W03 consist of riverbank grape (Vitis riparia, FACW), cottonwood (Populus deltoides, FAC) and boxelder. Other common species identified in the wetland are listed on the data forms included in Appendix C. The dominant species within the wetland are comprised mostly of hydrophytic vegetation (OBL, FACW, and/or FAC) and meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The wetland appears to have a seasonally inundated/saturated hydroperiod within the center. Primary Hydrology Indicators observed were Highwater Table (A2) and Saturation (A3). Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed included D2 and D5. Therefore, the wetland hydrology criterion was met. Soils within the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Markey muck (Appendix A, Figure 2). The soils observed at the sample points were generally consistent with the Markey series characteristics. Field indicators of hydric soil identified at sample point W03-1w consisted of NRCS field Indicator A1-Histosol. Therefore, the hydric soil criterion was satisfied. The wetland boundary was determined based on distinct differences in vegetation, hydrology, soils, and topography consisting of the following: 1) Transition from a shallow open water wetland community dominated by riverbank grape and cottonwood to a mesic forest upland community dominated by ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea, FACU), beggar's lice (Hackelia virginiana, FACU), and common buckthorn; 2) Transition from an area exhibiting wetland hydrology indicators within the wetland to a lack of wetland hydrology indicators within the adjacent upland; and 3)Transition from soils exhibiting hydric soil indicators to soils lacking indicators of hydric soil conditions. The transition from wetland to upland characteristics generally correlated with a well-defined topographic break. 3.3.4 Wetland 4 Wetland 4(W04) is a shallow open water community that is a part of a wetland complex which is central to all five sections of the Project. Most of the wetland is made up of the shallow open water community but the sample point was taken in a thin wetland fringe along the open water(Appendix A, Figure 1). Dominant plant species identified at sample points completed within W04 consist of reed canary grass, black willow and American elm(Ulmus americana, FACW). Other common species identified in the wetland are listed on the data forms included in Appendix C.The dominant species within the wetland are comprised mostly of hydrophytic vegetation (OBL, FACW, and/or FAC)and meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The wetland appears to have a seasonally inundated/saturated hydroperiod within the center. Primary Hydrology Indicators observed were A2 and A3. Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed included D2 and D5. Therefore, the wetland hydrology criterion was met. 6 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration Results October 26, 2023 Soils within the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Seelyeville muck and Zimmerman fine sand(Appendix A, Figure 2). The soils observed at the sample points were generally consistent with the Seelyeville series characteristics. Field indicators of hydric soil identified at sample point W04-1w consisted of NRCS field Indicators Al-Histosol. Therefore, the hydric soil criterion was satisfied. The wetland boundary was determined based on distinct differences in vegetation, hydrology, soils, and topography consisting of the following: 1)Transition from a shallow open water wetland community dominated by reed canary grass and black willow to a mesic forest upland community dominated by ground ivy, hackberry(Celtis occidentalis, FAC), and common buckthorn; 2)Transition from an area exhibiting wetland hydrology indicators within the wetland to a lack of wetland hydrology indicators within the adjacent upland; and 3)Transition from soils exhibiting hydric soil indicators to soils lacking indicators of hydric soil conditions. The transition from wetland to upland characteristics generally correlated with a well-defined topographic break. 3.3.5 Wetland 5 Wetland 5(W05) is a shallow open water community that is a part of a wetland complex which is central to all five sections of the Project. W05 is connected to a culvert along its southeast boundary. Most of the wetland is made up of the shallow open water community but the sample point was taken in a thin wetland fringe along the open water(Appendix A, Figure 1). Dominant plant species identified at sample points completed within W05 consist of black willow and willowherb (Epilobium coloratum, OBL). Other common species identified in the wetland are listed on the data forms included in Appendix C. The dominant species within the wetland are comprised mostly of hydrophytic vegetation (OBL, FACW, and/or FAC)and meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The wetland appears to have a seasonally inundated/saturated hydroperiod within the center. Primary Hydrology Indicators observed were A2, A3, and Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1). Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed included D2 and D5. Therefore, the wetland hydrology criterion was met. Soils within the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Udorthents,wet substratum and Urban land(Appendix A, Figure 2). The soils observed at the sample points were generally consistent with the Seelyeville and Markey series characteristics found along other parts of the wetland complex. Field indicators of hydric soil identified at sample point W05-1w consisted of NRCS field Indicators A3-Black Histic and S4-Sandy Gleyed Matrix. Therefore, the hydric soil criterion was satisfied. The wetland boundary was determined based on distinct differences in vegetation, hydrology, soils, and topography consisting of the following: 1)Transition from a shallow open water wetland community dominated by willowherb and black willow to a maintained lawn upland community dominated by Kentucky blue grass and black mustard (Brassica nigra); 2)Transition from an area exhibiting wetland hydrology indicators within the wetland to a lack of wetland hydrology indicators within the adjacent upland; and 3)Transition from soils exhibiting hydric soil indicators to soils lacking indicators of hydric soil conditions. The transition from wetland to upland characteristics generally correlated with a well-defined topographic break. 3.3.6 Wetland 6 Wetland 6(W06) is a shallow open water community that is a part of a wetland complex which is central to all five sections of the Project. Most of the wetland is made up of the shallow open water community but the sample point was taken in a thin wetland fringe along the open water(Appendix A, Figure 1). Dominant plant species identified at sample points completed within W01 consist of American elm and Bebb's willow (Salix bebbiana, FACW). Other common species identified in the wetland are listed on the 7 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration Results October 26,2023 data forms included in Appendix C. The dominant species within the wetland are comprised mostly of hydrophytic vegetation (OBL, FACW, and/or FAC) and meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The wetland appears to have a seasonally inundated/saturated hydroperiod within the center. Primary Hydrology Indicators observed were A2,A3, and Cl. Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed included D2 and D5. Therefore, the wetland hydrology criterion was met. Soils within the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Udorthents,wet substratum and Urban land(Appendix A, Figure 2). The soils observed at the sample points were generally consistent with the Seelyeville and Markey series characteristics found along other parts of the wetland complex. Field indicators of hydric soil identified at sample point W06-1w consisted of NRCS field Indicator A3-Black Histic. Therefore, the hydric soil criterion was satisfied. The wetland boundary was determined based on distinct differences in vegetation, hydrology, soils, and topography consisting of the following: 1)Transition from a shallow open water wetland community dominated by American elm and Bebb's willow to a maintained lawn upland community dominated by Kentucky blue grass and buckthorn; 2)Transition from an area exhibiting wetland hydrology indicators within the wetland to a lack of wetland hydrology indicators within the adjacent upland; and 3)Transition from soils exhibiting hydric soil indicators to soils lacking indicators of hydric soil conditions. The transition from wetland to upland characteristics generally correlated with a well-defined topographic break. 3.3.7 Wetland 7 Wetland 7 (W07) is a shrub swamp community that is a part of a wetland complex which is central to all five sections of the Project(Appendix A, Figure 1). Dominant plant species identified at sample points completed within W07 consist of reed canary grass, black willow, and American elm. Other common species identified in the wetland are listed on the data forms included in Appendix C. The dominant species within the wetland are comprised mostly of hydrophytic vegetation (OBL, FACW, and/or FAC) and meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The wetland appears to have a seasonally inundated/saturated hydroperiod within the center. Primary Hydrology Indicators observed were Surface Water (A1), A2, and A3. Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed included D2 and D5. Therefore, the wetland hydrology criterion was met. Soils within the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Udorthents, wet substratum, Markey muck, and Seelyeville muck(Appendix A, Figure 2).The soils observed at the sample points were generally consistent with the Seelyeville and Markey series characteristics. Field indicators of hydric soil identified at sample point W07-1w consisted of NRCS field Indicator A1-Histosol. Therefore, the hydric soil criterion was satisfied. The wetland boundary was determined based on distinct differences in vegetation, hydrology, soils, and topography consisting of the following: 1)Transition from a shallow open water and shrub swamp wetland community dominated by reed canary grass and black willow to a maintained lawn upland community dominated by quack grass(Elymus repens, FACU) and buckthorn; 2)Transition from an area exhibiting wetland hydrology indicators within the wetland to a lack of wetland hydrology indicators within the adjacent upland; and 3)Transition from soils exhibiting hydric soil indicators to soils lacking indicators of hydric soil conditions. The transition from wetland to upland characteristics generally correlated with a well-defined topographic break. 8 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration Results October 26, 2023 3.3.8 Wetland 8 Wetland 8 (W08) is made up of a hardwood swamp and shallow open water communities that is a part of a wetland complex which is central to all five sections of the Project (Appendix A, Figure 1). The sample point for W08 was taken within the hardwood swamp community. Dominant plant species identified at sample points completed within W08 consist of common buckthorn, cottonwood,and American elm.Other common species identified in the wetland are listed on the data forms included in Appendix C. The dominant species within the wetland are comprised mostly of hydrophytic vegetation (OBL, FACW, and/or FAC) and meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The wetland appears to have a seasonally inundated/saturated hydroperiod within the center. No Primary Hydrology Indicators were observed. Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed included D2 and D5. Therefore,the wetland hydrology criterion was met. Soils within the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Udorthents, wet substratum, Urban land-Lino complex, and Seelyeville muck (Appendix A, Figure 2). The soils observed at the sample points were generally consistent with the Lino series characteristics. Field indicators of hydric soil identified at sample point W08-1w consisted of NRCS field Indicator All-Depleted Below Dark Surface. Therefore, the hydric soil criterion was satisfied. The wetland boundary was determined based on distinct differences in vegetation, hydrology, soils, and topography consisting of the following: 1)Transition from a hardwood swamp and shallow open water wetland community dominated by cottonwood and American elm to a mesic forest upland community dominated by buckthorn; 2)Transition from an area exhibiting wetland hydrology indicators within the wetland to a lack of wetland hydrology indicators within the adjacent upland; and 3)Transition from soils exhibiting hydric soil indicators to soils lacking indicators of hydric soil conditions. The transition from wetland to upland characteristics generally correlated with a well-defined topographic break. 3.4 UPLANDS Upland within the Project primarily consisted of a paved walking trail and maintained lawn with woody vegetation growing along the edge of the wetland. Dominant vegetation in this area was comprised of ground ivy, Kentucky bluegrass, quack grass, beggar's lice, boxelder, cottonwood, and buckthorn. The upland communities across the project were prominently defined by the change in topography. In general, upland areas were determined to be non-wetland based on the lack of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and a location in areas higher in the landscape that lacked suitable geomorphic position for wetland conditions to exist. 3.5 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS This report is limited to the identification of state and/or federally regulated wetlands within the Study Area. However,there may be other regulated features within the Study Area, including,but not limited to, historical or archeological features, endangered or threatened species, navigable waters, shoreland zones, and/or floodplains,etc. Federal,state,and local units of government and regional planning organizations may have regulatory authority to control or restrict land uses within or in close proximity to these features. 9 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration Conclusion October 26, 2023 4.0 CONCLUSION Stantec performed a wetland delineation of the Silver View Pond Restoration on behalf of the City of Mounds View.The approximately 7.522-acre Project are is located in Section 7,Township 30 North, Range 23 West, City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota. The purpose and objective of the wetland delineation was to identify wetlands within the Project. Eight wetlands were identified and delineated within the Project in accordance with state and federal guidelines and were subsequently flagged, surveyed with GPS, and mapped using GIS software. A combined total of 2.48 acres of wetlands were delineated within the Project. Wetlands were mostly composed of wet meadow, shrub swamp, hardwood swamp, and shallow open water. Adjacent uplands were composed of maintained lawns and mesic woods. The USACE has regulatory authority over Waters of the U.S. including adjacent wetlands, and the MNDNR has regulatory authority over Minnesota Public Waters under Statute 103G and Rule 6115. Most wetlands in Minnesota that are not covered by the Public Waters Work Permit Program are covered by the Minnesota WCA Rules Chapter 6420 and administered by an LGU. LGUs can be a City, County, Watershed District or Soil and Water Conservation District depending on project location. The LGU for this Project is the City of Mounds View. Stantec recommends this report be submitted to the LGU and USACE for final jurisdictional review and concurrence. Finally,counties,townships and municipalities may have local zoning authority over certain types of wetlands and waterways. Prior to beginning work at this site or disturbing or altering wetlands, waterways, or adjacent lands in any way, Stantec recommends that the owner obtain the necessary permits or other agency regulatory review and concurrence with regard to the proposed work to comply with applicable regulations. Stantec can assist with identification and/or assessment of additional regulated resources at your request, to the extent that the work is within our range of expertise. The information provided by Stantec regarding wetland boundaries is a scientific-based analysis of the wetland and upland conditions present within the Project area at the time of the fieldwork. The delineation was performed by experienced and qualified professionals using standard practices and sound professional judgment. The ultimate decision on wetland boundaries rests with the USACE and, in some cases, the MNDNR or an LGU.As a result,there may be adjustments to boundaries based upon review by a regulatory agency. An agency determination can vary from time to time depending on various factors including, but not limited to recent precipitation patterns and the season of the year. In addition, the physical characteristics of the Project area can change over time, depending on the weather, vegetation patterns, drainage activities on adjacent parcels, or other events. Any of these factors can change the nature and extent of wetlands within the Study Area. This wetland delineation report and the associated wetland boundaries cannot be depended on until they are approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Wetland Conservation Act. It is recommended to review and confirm these approvals before depending on this report. 10 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration References October 26, 2023 5.0 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/classwet/index.html (Version 04DEC1998). Eggers, S. D., & D. M. Reed. 2015. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin (V. 3.2). U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, St. Paul, MN District.Available at: https://usace.contentdm.ocic.orq/digital/collection/p266001 coll1/id/2801/ Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y- 87-1, U.S.Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS. Kloiber, S.M., Norris, D.J., and Bergman,A.L. 2019. Minnesota Wetland Inventory: User Guide and Summary Statistic. June 2019. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN. 66 pp. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1985. Final Designation of Protected (Public)Waters and Wetlands within Ramsey County, Minnesota. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt section/pwi/download lists.html Shaw, S. P., and C. G. Fredine. 1956. Wetlands of the United States: Their extent and values to Waterfowl and other wildlife. Washington D. C. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of River Basin Studies. Circular 39. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic(SSURGO) Database.Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/or http://datagateway.nres.usda.gov/. Accessed [10/18/2023]. USACE. 1991 a. "Implementation of the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual,"memorandum from John P. Elmore dated 27 August 1991. USACE. 1991 b. "Questions &Answers on the 1987 Manual,"memorandum from John F. Studt dated 7 October 1991. USACE. 1996. "Guidelines for Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota to the St. Paul District Corps of Engineers", Public Notice from Ben Wopat dated 22 May 1996. USACE. 2011. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:Northcentral and Northeast Region(Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakely, R.W. Lichvar, C.V. Nobel, and J. F. Berkowitz. ERDC/EL TR-12-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. USACE and Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). 2015. Guidance for submittal of Delineation Reports to the St. Paul District Army Corps of Engineers and Wetland Conservation Act Local Governmental Units in Minnesota, (Version 2). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS). 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. United States Geological Survey(USGS). Minnesota 7.5 Minute Series(Topographic) Maps. 1:24,000. Reston, VA: United States Department of the Interior, USGS. 11 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration Figures October 26,2023 Appendix A FIGURES Figure 1. Project Location Figure 2. NRCS Soil Survey Data—Hydric Ratings Figure 3. MN Protected/Public Waters Figure 4. National Wetlands Inventory Data Figure 5. Field Collected Data A i ?‘ 11 1 Arita Pre . .14)sl 10 l m Spring Lake 1 Park I to ea 0 I X d - p eC Hillview R Hillview Rd I z Gi)- m 4S a - Oakwood.Dr_ Terrace_D.r-- Spring ewe/ -- Laire `a County Road I = ---- •ne Rd NE 108 I Is F _, �,ti P.3., , ( I Bronson-Dr—: 75th Ave NE I 0 o 0Mounds View I it o „,,,, St NE l I 1‘===i fore` County-Road H2 W_ • ID T __ > CO Cummins c c _ �, . : m I ° 7) Quo k Woodcrest D. 1t.' 9 1 69th Ave NE- —_I — County_Road+l-W — — .__ I S, Rice Creek I °' Rice Creek West Trail Park - I Rice Creek North Regional I West Trail Trail I j Corridor • ?yi ss5i0pi St NE I '".'. s isi;: St - I I I lexmgtotr;---r 0 1.000 2000 ei Legend coon/Pig crrzle PMes—Z f•ka I Feet 43 �dtle _L a (At ph Iapa,ment Approximate Project Areagine document size oresxll I P 1C•P _Mounds Shoreview 2 !_ ring View I- I a �OOkfyn •tie Park 5 Stantec _ II r � I Ramsey = Fndk- • New• .,..' Arden North ak NIRS $Oakis Pro/eci Location Prepared by JM on 2023-10-18 Err''okinthw ,\1 j 'l T30N R23W S7 TR by AS on 2023-10.19 egMsZ I 1 C.of Mounds\new,Ramsey To..MN IR by XX on 2023-XX-XX -Nakov n i J Chenf/Poect 193806465 City of Mounds View Notes Silver 1.Coordinate System:NAD 1983 StatePlaneView Pond Restoration Minnesota South FIPS 2203 Feet Wetland Delineation 2.Data Sources-Stantec,NADS,USGS Figure No. 3.Background:Esri Street Map Title Project Location Page 1 of 1 Disclaimer:This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section.Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which maybe incorporated herein as a resuk.Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format,and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. + 1039 863. 4 ift• ISit- 46 ..... . .. �' ....,, . , ,, , . ,. , , sat'r�� ,lif oil dy C'J y ' 859B ' .4' A } O it Qct rte. `Li) 4« i , A. � }r 4 '* - ,, tea►` At� 158B4. 4t ', - .. .:- B A4 ;. ,../. . A _ , ,„,,,, /....,:,,.: - -. - 4 ''''''' A # :1:40 * 4."1-. 40 �s 1LB , / _.. . � +"\ ,7!x1 T cis (0I, ,. an I11111c - .., parkviewDr 0 • .. fig ,,,,,,4 :,-,.„., . '- ., - • 1039 ,i 4 ,. ,d - g s - 4. ......,, .„...... 'a, :4: --W , . , 4 J4ei 6's r.,-,-, ..--..,�, _. _re , .- a h , x} oI- ali ', --- .... , .1#1 ic, Twit re. Le f* tr a II-- .1..' too*. --a .. . t, 5 le 1t.< .." l `a 'moi. r 4th t i ��� o ' GarvtwA ,, 8596 N � � 1. f .'' I 0 200 400 N Spring' Legend s Feet * ET w%-y Approximate Project Area (At origin al document size of 8.5¢11) SI NRCS Soil Survey Data 14,800 MoundViewHydric Soil Rating 73 Anoka Ramsay el Hydric(H) Fridley ® Predominantly Hydric(PrH) Ci Stantec C Partially Hydric(PaH)` Project Location Prepared by JM on 2023.10-18 T30N,823W S7 TR by AS on 2023-10-19 New Brighton Q Predominantly Non-Hydric(PNH) I C.of mounds View,Ramsey Ca.,MN IR by XX ae 2023X%-%X ONon-Hydric City of Mounds Mew 193806465 Notes National H dro rah Silver View Pond Restoration Coordinate System:NAD 1983 State%ane y g p y Dataset I.Coo Minnesota South FIPS 2203 Feet ^ Wetland Delineation 2.Data Sources:Stantec,NADS,USGS,NRCS V Perennial Stream' Figure No. 3.Background:2022 NAIP rN. Intermittent Stream` 1e Ephemeral Stream* NRCS Soil Survey Data � Waterbody Hydric Ratings *No Features Within Data Frame Page I of 1 Disclaimer This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section.Stantec has not vented the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result.Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format,and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. ., I` ,aa, � •�!r y ,f . , ° ` �aa .. 1 Os ' y i 't ' — 4%.4`. e ' . . ' *it 1.,.;'' 44, —' i --:4 '' '•': a '2' ' ,. , . v xr x , ^; .'. V; _. .. , 41110' / i _17 7,,,.. — i �, parkvew'Dr dy � l Hodges,n ++*" .. .. .' art ,SG- . .410,;,-- ± a`. • ktx "" Cou .- IMP" 7 ifi x t ,, Low a Ave, 144Jr. f +r .. °o` * 7.- :‘: P7°i44 . t'-‘16e. ' '44NO rift 2i 4-*.A......, 149e A :ii1itl -';11 ' : - jiblinr'—'7 v. c Nri,,H. . ---.L - ''..e 4 i.-,' 5 *-14.TV `,7*' - - JI £, ,iiiarvewAe ,cle _ ; 01, • .., ... _ s�r0 200 400 N Eik Legend s Feet Approximate Project Area original docu1:4,ment800 size of 8.8x11) DNR Protected Watercourse` Mound.View MN Protected/Public Waters Anoka Ramsey Fnay DNR Protected Water' ® Stantee DNR Protected Wetland P jecf Location Prepared by JM on 2023-10-18 T30N,R23W 57 TR by AS on 2023-10-19 --- C.of Mounds View,Ramsey Co.,MN IR by XX on 2023XX-%X New Brighton ClienVPo cot 783908/65 City of'vlounds View Mores Silver View Pond Restoration Wetland Delineation 1.Coordinate System:NAD 1983 State%ane Minnesota South FIPS 2203 Fee[ Figure No 2.Data Sources:Stantee,NADS,USGS,MnDNR 3 3.Background:2022 NAIP Title i MN Protected/Public Waters j No Features Within Data Frame Page 1 of 1 Disclaimer:This document has been prepared based on information provided by othersasb cited in the Notes section.Stantee has not vented the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result.Stantee assumes no responsibility far data supplied in electronic format,and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. LM1D 4L —{ i ip 1-* , ` • '��04� • y�,qh Y WPM/ °os` s ey 1 , r • . { • '4\U g � n. Y ` . M J wy �w c ;:,' 11, OM Pi). . . ` a. ., PABH ,,r k i view � Ur � --.ow– ��-T, ,,:- Park �, x �lit.j1111‘ .� T40.,, .• #w 1�9eS l 'k' r lkw. aG ! Villtk, t. . ., i PF01�, I * 5`o� s ! 1 — ,vcriies... y►! = S t County Road 2. 1 797 F.., . . 11---' , *vple 1.1'41 ti., '-'' Loui'saAve, o; 145 t fid. a a- ''f • 'it . ,• ' �•` Z 0 ii 1Ad ., ' a7 m • 21c 1. I� = , Clearwew Ave- • , 1 y Y t I'.� P M1. t t-0 ! 1 allir ` ria, " T ii��, tf W ! Spring, Legend 0 200 400Feet N LS. r;r Approximate Project Area (At original document size of 8.54111 _� 1'.4,800 National Wetlands Inventory Feature Mounds trees National Hydrography Dataset Anoka Ramsey F� Perennial Stream' ® Stantec ley / Intermittent Stream* Project Location Prepared by JM on 2023-10-t8 T3oN,823W SI TR by AS on 202310-t9 - i � r ,, Ephemeral Stream` . f Mounds View,Ramsey Co..MN IR by XX on 2023-XX-XX New Brighton • Waterbody City of Mounds View 193806465 Notes Silver View Pond Restoration 1.Coordinate System:NAD 1983 StatePlane Wetland Delineation Minnesota South FIPS 2203 Feet Fi . 2.Data Sources:Stantec,NADS,USGS,USFWS 4gure No 3.Background 2022 NAIP Title National Wetlands Inventory `No Features Within Data Frame Page I of 1 Disclaimer.This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section.Stantec has not venfied the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result.Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format,and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of Ore data. t ., ..igt/ikki* •,c46,.. '''.-4.— \-: , $,,,,,,,, , ' F alp ... , . 0 . . , 0 i _ _ . ......, , 4.--t, .. ..4... • . .. if i -,./.}-t . ). . f . . de ?7-\--\\". I . VVOi• a 2..,),;"/ / —!� J .J Y Ask f olkit) Q V\41'1-1 vl ♦ :„_���^`�� I �' J 44,� w',:-`4,1714. �M�r^`fir. , `W09 .< _ , . O^� . ,7.14..„.„4,1 • 1 wo2 O , „ .., c2.1,-. I W03 �''t .:._. , • \. , 1.1. \. V1i(i i/;, W06._ WOS' Wil ,............,... r.:..t:om.:„,.._._._._:__`-':H-8g6-''--...'"--=r=.f.----.--,-----V\)(1(;,'Ik v1\:1, co,i 1 arOlew Dr, ` vt��I i i� ' 'l b t • I ..-c)/r-----do)' u , -7( ---:*. , 1 i ,Hodges, . tnfoi.tt-0 ` 'L '_ ' i 1Jg ] �` ` ��, - ` _ 1 .. - 8Cotl'andlcV c`,/^�(,+,5 I! t j • d!" .•,,,..,. • i f \NOR iv,,, \NOtt.lti . 8i ------------N o `_ ` j 1900. 3 fir,' . r a • o Gounty'RoadrH2. �,- —502•__., - seY Fp , I'''t ,. e e r ,. � Ql{ ,. AA � i 11 y j it v' JET ' Louis _I'Ave o}-)t-- m Q/ it890i ani ( ° c'cm =, ____,,.___„.„,„.....„...______ c,a» -�_ r ,ti . . ._, .... • cu ,�, c . \ ,e Glearview)Ave�-- tri _ ! ( ) : ,,,, __, ,... 0 200 400 spr,ng Legend Feet Lake l ellApproximate Project Area (At original document size of 8.5011) .7� 1:4,00 s Culvert Mound,view Anoka Ramsey Sample Point } (10 tan 6ec Fndky �) Field Delineated Wetland J1• 2ft Elevation Contour Project Location Prepared by JM on 2023-10-18 1300,823W,S7 TR by AS on 2023.10-19 National Hydrography Dataset C.of Mounds View,Ramsey Co..MN IR by XX on 2023-XX-XX New Brighton Perennial Stream° City of eo 193806/85 City of Mounds View Notes / Silver View Pond Restoration 1.Coordinate System:NAD 1983 StatePlane \ Intermittent Stream' Wetland Delineation Minnesota South FIPS 2203 Feet Ephemeral Stream° Figure No 2.Data Sources:Stantec,NADS,USGS,MnGeo ' P 3.Background:2022 NAIP Waterbody nue Field Collected Data 'No Features Within Data Frame Page 1 of 1 Disclaimer This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section.Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result.Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format,and the reapient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration APT ANALYSIS October 26, 2023 Appendix B APT ANALYSIS B Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network — Daily Total — 30-Day Rolling Total 8 4 30 Year Normal Range 2023-08-24 \--.-,'''".'...\ 2023-10-23 7- 6- l LI) i ..._ cu _c (04- f _ 4- C C f oC 3. r ''\ ) 1 2_ [\-- I - 2 D23-0 -23 1- 1 L'--- � _1 0 n 1. ., r 11 J, n n,., r nr, fl L 5 .,II n t na 1 , , , Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2024 2024 2024 Coordinates 45.102407,-93.213285 30 Days Ending 30`"%ile (in) 70`^%ile (in) Observed(in) Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product Observation Date 2023-10-23 2023-10-23 1.44252 3.702362 7.712599 Wet 3 3 9 Elevation(ft) 896.677 2023-09-23 1.915354 4.144882 0.519685 Dry 1 2 2 Drought Index(PDSI) Severe drought(2023-09) 2023-08-24 2.420079 6.08189 7.885827 Wet 3 1 3 WebWIMP H2O Balance Wet Season Result Normal Conditions-14 G RPs OFF Figure and tables made by the y hCiy Antecedent Precipitation Tool Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation(ft) Distance(mi) Elevation Weighted 0 Days Normal Days Antecedent Version 1.0 U OF MN ST PAUL 44.9903,-93.18 970.144 7.914 73.467 4.143 11303 83 Jy �Aa FALCON HEIGHTS 0.4 NNW 44.9956,-93.1793 979.003 0.368 8.859 0.169 2 0 FALCON HEIGHTS 0.8 NE 44.9965,-93.1633 969.16 0.922 0.984 0.416 4 7 �.. 7411r4.,?. I Written by Jason Deters ST PAUL 35W 44.9311,-93.1539 924.869 4.285 45.275 2.122 31 0 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers LOWER ST ANTHONY FALLS 44.9783,-93.2469 753.937 3.373 216.207 2.247 12 0 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS October 26, 2023 Appendix C WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS c WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: Silver View Pond City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/23/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: W01-tu Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,TO3ON, R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Side slope Local relief(concave,convex,none): Convex Slope%: 50-60 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K, MLRA 91 B Lat: 45.104112 Long: -93.218169 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Zimmerman fine sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W01 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) _Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _Surface Water(A1) _Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(B15) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) _Hydrogen Suede Odor(Cl) - Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(134) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) - Shallow Aquitard(D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(67) _Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Microtopographic Relief(D4) - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W01-1u Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Robinia pseudoacacia 20 Yes FACU Number of Dominant Species 2. Quercus alba 20 Yes FACU That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 3 _(A) 3. Acer negundo 15 Yes FAC Total Number of Dominant 4. Celtis occidentalis 5 No FAC Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 5. 6. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 50 (NB) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 60 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ft ) OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 1. Rhamnus cathartica 20 Yes FAC FACW species 15 x 2= 30 2. FAC species 55 x 3= 165 3. FACU species 55 x 4= 220 4. 5 UPL species 10 x 5= 50 6 Column Totals: 135 (A) 465 (B) 7 Prevalence Index=B/A= 3.44 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 20 =Total Cover 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) -2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Phalaris arundinacea 15 Yes FACW 2. Parthenocissus inserts 15 Yes FACU -3- Prevalence Index is 53.0' 3. Setaria pumila 10 No FAC -4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. Leonuruscardiaca 10 No UPL 5. Rhamnus cathartica 5 No FAC -Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 6 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. 10. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. 12 Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 55 =Total Cover Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. height. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes No X Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: W01-1u Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/1 95 2.5YR 4/8 5 C M Loamy Sand 8-20 10YR 3/1 100 Loamy Sand 20-24 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy Sand 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(Al) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) _ Stratified Layers(A5) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) - Sandy Mucky Mineral(51) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) X Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) - Stripped Matrix(S6) Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) — Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: Silver View Pond City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/23/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: W01-1w Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,TO3ON, R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Toeslope Local relief(concave,convex,none): Concave Slope%: 0-1 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K, MLRA 91B Lat: 45.10407 Long: -93.218191 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Zimmerman fine sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification: PEM1 F Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W01 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Surface Water(Al) _Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(B15) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) — Crayfish Burrows(C8) — Sediment Deposits(B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) —Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _Other(Explain in Remarks) — Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W01-1w Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 5. 6. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft ) OBL species x 1 = 1. FACW species x 2= 2. FAC species x 3= 3. FACU species x 4= 4. 5. UPL species x 5= 6. Column Totals: (A) (B) 7 Prevalence Index=B/A= Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 0 =Total Cover X 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Phalaris arundinacea 75 Yes FACW - 2. Veronicastrum virginicum 5 No FAC -3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 3, Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU -4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. 5 -Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 6. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. 10. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. 12 Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 85 =Total Cover Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. height. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes X No Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: W01-1w Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loci Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 5/1 95 2.5YR 4/8 5 C M Loamy Sand 8-16 10Y 4/1 100 Loamy Sand 16-24 10Y 6/1 100 Loamy Sand 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(A1) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) _ Stratified Layers(A5) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) - Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) X Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) - Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Mari(F10)(LRR K,L) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: Silver View Pond City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/23/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: W02-1u Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,TO3ON,R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Shoulder Local relief(concave,convex,none): Concave Slope%: 10-20 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K, MLRA 91B Lat: 45.103997 Long: -93.217664 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Seelyeville muck NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W02 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Point was take next to a paved walking trail. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) - Surface Water(A1) _Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _ Drainage Pattems(B10) High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) _Moss Trim Lines(B16) Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(B15) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) - Water Marks(B1) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _Crayfish Burrows(C8) - Sediment Deposits(B2) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) -Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) - Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) _Thin Muck Surface(Cl) -Shallow Aquitard(D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _Other(Explain in Remarks) - Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W02-1u Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Salix nigra 30 Yes OBL Number of Dominant Species 2. Acer negundo 10 Yes FAC That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 3 _(A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 5. 6. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 75 (NB) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 40 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft ) OBL species 30 x 1 = 30 1. Rhamnus cathartica 10 Yes FAC FACW species 0 x 2= 0 2. FAC species 30 x 3= 90 3. FACU species 40 x 4= 160 4. UPL species 0 x 5= 0 5. 6. Column Totals: 100 (A) 280 (B) 7 Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.8 10 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover - 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) - X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Alliaria petiolata 25 Yes FACU 2. Rhamnus cathartica 10 No FAC X 3 Prevalence Index is 53.0' 3. Taraxacum officinale 10 No FACU -4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. Poa pratensis 5 No FACU 5. _Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 6. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in 10. diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. 12. Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 50 =Total Cover Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. height. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes X No Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: W02-1u Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/1 100 Loamy Sand 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(A1) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) Stratified Layers(A5) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) - Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) - Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) - Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) - Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Mad(F10)(LRR K,L) — Other(Explain in Remarks) — Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: Refusal on walk way till at 8in. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: Silver View Pond City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/23/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: W02-1w Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,TO3ON, R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Toeslope Local relief(concave,convex,none): Concave Slope%: 0-5 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K, MLRA 916 Lat: 45.10397 Long: -93.217624 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Seelyeville muck NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No_ Are Vegetation _ ,Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W02 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Point take in wetland fringe associated with pond. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(66) - Surface Water(Al) _Water-Stained Leaves(69) _ Drainage Patterns(610) High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) _ Moss Trim Lines(816) Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(815) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) - Water Marks(B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _Crayfish Burrows(C8) - Sediment Deposits(B2) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) -Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) -Shallow Aquitard(D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(67) _Other(Explain in Remarks) -Microtopographic Relief(D4) _Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W02-1w Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status 1. Salix nigra 40 Yes OBL Number of Dominant Species 2. F2xinus pennsylvanica 5 No FACW That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 6. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 80 (A/B) , 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 45Total%Cover of: Multiply by: =Total Cover ft Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ) OBL species 40 x 1= 40 1. Acer negundo 5 Yes FAC FACW species 25 x 2= 50 2. FAC species 25 x 3= 75 3. FACU species 10 x 4= 40 4. UPL species 0 x 5= 0 5. Column Totals: 100 (A) 205 (B) 6. Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.05 7 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 =Total Cover 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) x 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Onoclea sensibilis 20 Yes FACW 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' t 2. Acer negundo 15 Yes FAC 4 Morphological Adaptations 3. Alliaria petiolate 10 Yes FACU -(Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. Rhamnus cathartica 5 No FAC Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) - 6. 5. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 8. 9. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in 10 diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH 12 and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 50 =Total Cover Herb-All herbaceous(non woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. height. 3. Hydrophytic 4. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes X No Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Northcentral and Northeast Region-Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: W02-1w Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 3/1 100 Loamy Sand 10-16 10YR 3/1 95 2.5YR 4/8 5 C M Loamy Sand 16-24 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy Sand 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(Al) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 1498) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) Stratified Layers(A5) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(Fl)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) X Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) - Sandy Mucky Mineral(51) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) - Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) - Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) - Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: Silver View Pond City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/23/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: yy03-1u Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,TO3ON,R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Shoulder Local relief(concave,convex,none): Convex Slope%: 0-10 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K, MLRA 91B Lat: 45.103959 Long: -93.211807 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Markey muck NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W03 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Point taken next to a paved walkway. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) - Surface Water(Al) _Water-Stained Leaves(B9) - Drainage Patterns(B10) High Water Table(A2) Aquatic Fauna(613) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(615) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Crayfish Burrows(C8) - Sediment Deposits(B2) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) -Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _Other(Explain in Remarks) -Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W03-1u Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Acernegundo 30 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species 2. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: _ 4 (B) 5. 6 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 30 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft ) OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 1. Rhamnus cathartica 10 Yes FAC FACW species 0 x 2= 0 2. FAC species 45 x 3= 135 3. FACU species 115 x 4= 460 4. 5. UPL species 0 x 5= 0 6. Column Totals: 160 (A) 595 (B) 7 Prevalence Index=B/A= 3.72 10 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover - 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) - 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Glechoma hederacea 90 Yes FACU 2. Hackelia virginiana 5 No FACU -3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 3, Rhamnus cathartica 5 No FAC -4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. 5 -Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 6. 'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. 10. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. 12 Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 100 =Total Cover Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Parthenocissus quinquefolia 20 Yes FACU Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. height. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation 20 =Total Cover Present? Yes No X Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: W03-1u Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-32 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky Loam 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': X Histosol(Al) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 1498) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 1498) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 1498) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) Stratified Layers(A5) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 1498) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,1498) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) - Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) - Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Mad(F10)(LRR K,L) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Northcentral and Northeast Region ProjecUSite: Silver View Pond City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/23/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: W03-1w Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,TO3ON, R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Toeslope Local relief(concave,convex,none): Concave Slope%: 0-1 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K, MLRA 91 B Lat: 45.103919 Long: -93.211797 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Markey muck NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W03 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Point take in wetland fringe along pond. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) _Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _Surface Water(A1) -Water-Stained Leaves(B9) - Drainage Patterns(B10) X High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) X Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(B15) X Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) -Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(82) -Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) -Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) -Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) -Thin Muck Surface(C7) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(87) _Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) - Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table PresentYes X No Depth(inches): 20 Saturation Present Yes X No Depth(inches): 8 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W03-1w Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Acer negundo 20 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species 2. Populus deltoides 20 Yes FAC That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 4 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 5. 6. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 67 (A/B) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 40 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft ) OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 1. Acer negundo 10 Yes FAC FACW species 0 x 2= 0 2. FAC species 70 x 3= 210 3. FACU species 20 x 4= 80 4. 5. UPL species 0 x 5= 0 6. Column Totals: 90 (A) 290 (B) 7 Prevalence Index=B/A= 3.22 10 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover - 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Vitis riparia 20 Yes FAC - 2. Glechoma hederacea 10 Yes FACU -3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 3. Hackelia virginiana 10 Yes FACU -4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. 5 -Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 6. 'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. 10. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. 12. Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 40 =Total Cover Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. height. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes X No Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: W03-1w Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loci Texture Remarks 0-32 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky Loam 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': X Histosol(A1) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) Stratified Layers(A5) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) - Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Mad(F10)(LRR K,L) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) - Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: Silver View City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/23/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: W04-1u Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,T030N,R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Shoulder Local relief(concave,convex,none): Convex Slope%: Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K,MLRA 91B Lat: 45.103723 Long: -93.214578 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Zimmerman fine sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W04 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Point taken next to paved walking path. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Surface Water(A1) _Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(813) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(815) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(67) _Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W04-1u Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Celtis occidentalis 40 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species 2. Populus deltoides 20 No FAC That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 3. 4 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 5. 6 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 67 (A/B) 7. - Prevalence Index worksheet: 60 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft ) OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 1. Rhamnus cathartica 30 Yes FAC FACW species 0 x 2= 0 2. Morus rubra 5 No FACU FAC species 95 x 3= 285 3. FACU species 35 x 4= 140 4. 5. UPL species 0 x 5= 0 6 Column Totals: 130 (A) 425 (B) 7 Prevalence Index=B/A= 3.27 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 35 =Total Cover - 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Glechoma hederacea 30 Yes FACU 2. Rhamnus cathartica 5 No FAC -3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 3 -4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. 5. _Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 6. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. 10. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. 12 Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 35 =Total Cover Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. height. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes X No Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region-Version 2.0 SOILSPoint:Point: W04-1u Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-24 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Loam 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(Al) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) Stratified Layers(A5) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) Sandy Mucky Mineral(SI) X Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) - Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) - Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/23/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: W04-1w Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,TO3ON, R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Toeslope Local relief(concave,convex,none): Concave Slope%: 0-1 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K,MLRA 91B Lat: 45.10366 Long: -93.214587 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Seelyeville muck NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W04 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Point taken along the edge of a pond. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _Surface Water(A1) _Water-Stained Leaves(69) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) X High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) _ Moss Trim Lines)B16) X Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(615) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(81) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(63) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present Yes X No Depth(inches): 8 Saturation PresentYes X No Depth(inches): 4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W04-1w Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status Dominance Test worksheet: I. Ulmus americana 20 Yes FACW Number of Dominant Species 2. Salix nigra 20 Yes OBL That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 4 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 5. 6 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 40 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft ) OBL species 20 x 1 = 20 1. Rhamnus cathartica 50 Yes FAC FACW species 30 x 2= 60 2. FAC species 50 x 3= 150 3. FACU species 0 x 4= 0 4. - 5. UPL species 0 x 5= 0 6 Column Totals: 100 (A) 230 (B) 7 Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 50 =Total Cover - 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Phalaris arundinacea 10 Yes FACW 2 X 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' - _4-Morphological Adaptations' 3. -- (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. 5. _Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 6. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. 10. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. 12 Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 10 =Total Cover Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. height. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes X No Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region-Version 2.0 SOILSampling Point: W04-1w Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-20 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky Loam 20-28 10YR 5/1 100 Loam 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': X Histosol(A1) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) _ Stratified Layers(A5) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MCRA 149B) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) - Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) - Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) - Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) - Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: Silver View Pond City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/24/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: W05-1u Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,TO3ON,R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Shoulder Local relief(concave,convex,none): Convex Slope%: 15-25 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K, MLRA 91 B Lat: 45.102583 Long: -93.209066 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents,wet substratum NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes XNo _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X— No Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W05 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Point taken next to sidewalk. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _Surface Water(Al) _Water-Stained Leaves(B9) -Drainage Patterns(B10) _High Water Table(A2) Aquatic Fauna(B13) - Moss Trim Lines(816) -Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(B15) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) - Water Marks(B1) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) -Crayfish Burrows(C8) -Sediment Deposits(B2) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) -Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) -Drift Deposits(B3) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) - Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) -Geomorphic Position(D2) -Iron Deposits(65) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _Shallow Aquitard(D3) -Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) _ FAC-Neutral Test(135) Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W05-1u Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Ulmus americana 15 Yes FACW Number of Dominant Species 2. Populus deltoides 10 Yes - FAC That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 5. 6 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 25 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft ) OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 1. FACW species 15 x 2= 30 2. FAC species 10 x 3= 30 3. FACU species 30 x 4= 120 4. UPL species 40 x 5= 200 5. 6 Column Totals: 95 (A) 380 (B) 7 Prevalence Index=B/A= 4 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover - 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) - 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Brassica nigra 40 Yes UPL - 3-Prevalence Index is<-3.0' 2. Poa pratensis 30 Yes FACU 3 _4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. 5 _Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 6. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. Tree—Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in 10. diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. 12 Sapling/shrub—Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 70 =Total Cover Herb—All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Woody vines—All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. height. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Present? Yes No X =Total Cover Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: W05-1u Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/1 100 Sandy Loam 8-10 10YR 5/4 100 Loamy Sand 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(Al) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) _ Stratified Layers(A5) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) - Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) Stripped Matrix(S6) Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) - Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: Refusal at 10 on till. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: Silver View Pond City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/24/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: W05-1w Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,T030N,R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Toeslope Local relief(concave,convex,none): Concave Slope%: 0-5 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K, MLRA 91 B Lat: 45.102563 Long: -93.209127 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents,wet substratum NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W05 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Point taken on the fringe of a pond. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) _Surface Soil Cracks(66) Surface Water(Al) _Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _ Drainage Patterns(810) X High Water Table(A2) Aquatic Fauna(B13) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) X Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(B15) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _Shallow Aquitard(D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present Yes X No Depth(inches): 6 Saturation Present Yes X No Depth(inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: Cl at 4in. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W05-1w Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 5. 6. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 100 (NB) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft ) OBL species 10 x 1 = 10 1. Salix nigra 5 No OBL FACW species 0 x 2= 0 2. FAC species 10 x 3= 30 3. FACU species 0 x 4= 0 4. UPL species 0 x 5= 0 5. Column Totals: 20 (A) 40 (B) 6. 7. Prevalence Index=B/A= 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 =Total Cover 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Epilobium coloratum 5 No OBL X 3-Prevalence Index is 553.0' 2. 3 _4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. 5. _Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 6. 'Indicators or hydric soil oiiland wetland hydrology must be present,unless d s 7. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in 10. diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. 12 Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 5 =Total Cover Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Vitis riparia 10 Yes FAC Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. height. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation 10 =Total Cover Present? Yes X No Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: W05-1w Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/1 100 Muck 4-8 10YR 5/1 100Loamy Sand 8-24 10Y 4/1 100 Loamy Sand 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(Al) — Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) — Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) X Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) Stratified Layers(A5) — Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) X Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) — Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) - Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) - Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: Silver View Pond City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/24/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: W06-1u Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,TO3ON, R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Shoulder Local relief(concave,convex,none): Concave Slope%: 0-5 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K,MLRA 91B Lat: 45.102656 Long: -93.21015 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban land NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W06 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Point taken next to paved walkway. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Surface Water(Al) _Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(B15) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _Crayfish Burrows(C8) _Sediment Deposits(B2) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) _Iron Deposits(B5) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W06-1u Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Populus tremuloides 10 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species 2. U/mus americana 10 Yes FACW That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 5. 6. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 75 (NB) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 20 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Saoling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft ) OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 1. Rhamnus cathartica 20 Yes FAC FACW species 10 x 2= 20 2. FAC species 30 x 3= 90 3. FACU species 55 x 4= 220 4. 5. UPL species 0 x 5= 0 6 Column Totals: 95 (A) 330 (B) 7 Prevalence Index=B/A= 3.47 20 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover - 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) x 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Poa pratensis 25 Yes FACU - 2. Solidago canadensis 20 No FACU -3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 3. Lotus comiculatus 10 No FACU -4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. 5 _Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 6 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. 10. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. 12 Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 55 =Total Cover Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. -- height. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes X No Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: W06-1u Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/1 100 Sandy Loam 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(A1) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) Stratified Layers(A5) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) - Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Mad(F10)(LRR K,L) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) - Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: Refusal at 8in on till. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: Silver View Pond City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/24/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: wo6-1w Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,T030N, R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Toeslope Local relief(concave,convex,none): Concave Slope%: 0-1 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K, MLRA 91 B Lat: 45.10267 Long: -93.21014 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban land NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W06 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Point taken along the edge of a pond. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Surface Water(Al) _Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _ Drainage Pattems(B10) X High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) X Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(B15) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _Crayfish Burrows(C8) - Sediment Deposits(B2) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _Other(Explain in Remarks) _Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present Yes X No Depth(inches): 2 Saturation Present Yes X No Depth(inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W06-1w Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Ulmus americana 10 Yes FACW Number of Dominant Species 2. Salix discolor 10 Yes FACW That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 3 (A) 3. Salix bebbiana 10 Yes FACW Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 5. 6 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (A/B) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 30 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft ) OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 1. FACW species 30 x 2= 60 2. FAC species 0 x 3= 0 3. FACU species 0 x 4= 0 4. UPL species 0 x 5= 0 5. 6 Column Totals: 30 (A) 60 (B) 7 Prevalence Index=B/A= 2 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover x 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. x 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 2. 3 _4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. 5 _Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 6. 'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. Tree—Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in 10. diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. 12 Sapling/shrub—Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 0 =Total Cover Herb—All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Woody vines—All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. height. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes X No Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: W06-1w Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 Muck 14-24 10Y 4/1 100 Loamy Sand 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(Al) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) X Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) _ Stratified Layers(A5) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) - Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) - Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) - Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: Silver View Pond City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/24/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: W07-1u Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,TO3ON, R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Side slope Local relief(concave,convex,none): Convex Slope%: 10-20 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K, MLRA 91 B Lat: 45.102307 Long: -93.21381 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents,wet substratum NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No— Are Vegetation _ ,Soil ,or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W07 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Surface Water(A1) _Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _Drainage Patterns(B10) High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(B15) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) Shallow Aquitard(D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(87) _Other(Explain in Remarks) _Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W07-1u Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 5. 6 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft ) OBL species 0 x 1= 0 1. Rhamnus cathartica 10 Yes FAC FACW species 0 x 2= 0 2. FAC species 10 x 3= 30 3. FACU species 95 x 4= 380 4. UPL species 0 x 5= 0 5. 6 Column Totals: 105 (A) 410 (B) 7 Prevalence Index=B/A= 3.9 10 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover - 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) - 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Elymus repens 80 Yes FACU - 3-Prevalence Index is 553.0' 2. Solidago canadensis 10 No FACU 3. Cirsium arvense 5 No FACU -4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. 5 _Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 6 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in 10. - diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. 12 Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 95 =Total Cover Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. height. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes No X Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: W07-1u Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 3/1 100 Loamy Sand 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol(Al) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 1498) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 1498) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 1498) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) Stratified Layers(A5) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral(51) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,146,1498) - Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) - Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) - Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Mart(F10)(LRR K,L) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) - Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: Refusal at 6in on gravel. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: Silver View Pond City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/24/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: W07-1w Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,TO3ON, R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Depression Local relief(concave,convex,none): Concave Slope%: 0-1 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K, MLRA 91B Lat: 45.102342 Long: -93.213837 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents,wet substratum NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W07 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Point taken along the edge of a pond. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) X Surface Water(A1) _Water-Stained Leaves(B9) Drainage Patterns(810) XHigh Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) - Moss Trim Lines(B16) X Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(B15) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) -Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) -Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) -Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(85) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _Other(Explain in Remarks) - Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes X No Depth(inches): 4 Water Table Present Yes X No Depth(inches): 0 Saturation PresentYes X No Depth(inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W07-1w Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Ulmus americana 20 Yes FACW Number of Dominant Species 2. Rhamnus cathartica 20 Yes FAC That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 5 (A) 3. Salix nigra 10 Yes OBL 4 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 5. 6. Percent of Dominant Species 7 That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (NB) Prevalence Index worksheet: 50 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft ) OBL species 20 x 1= 20 1. Rhamnus cathartica 20 No FAC FACW species 65 x 2= 130 2. Salix nigra 10 Yes OBL FAC species 40 x 3= 120 3. FACU species 0 x 4= 0 4. 5. UPL species 0 x 5= 0 6 Column Totals: 125 (A) 270 (B) 7. Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.16 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 30 =Total Cover 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 40 Yes FACW X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 2. Symphyotrlchum lanceolatum 5 No FACW - X 3 Prevalence Index is 53.0' 3. _4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. 5. _Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 6. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. 10. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. 12 Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 45 =Total Cover Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. height. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes X No Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Most of area is open water. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: W07-1w Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loci Texture Remarks 0-24 10YR 2/1 100 Muck 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': X Histosol(Al) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) Stratified Layers(A5) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) - Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) - Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) - Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: Silver View Pond City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/24/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: W08-1u Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,TO3ON,R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Shoulder Local relief(concave,convex,none): Convex Slope%: 40-50 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K,MLRA 91 B Lat: 45.101324 Long: -93.214675 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents,wet substratum NWI classification: PFO1 C Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W08 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Point taken 4 feet above wetland. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Surface Water(A1) _Water-Stained Leaves(59) _Drainage Patterns(B10) High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(B15) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) -Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(53) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _Shallow Aquitard(D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W08-1u Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Populus deltoides 30 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species 2. Ulmus americana 15 Yes FACW That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 3. Rhamnus cathartica 10 No FAC 4 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 5. 6 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 55 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft ) OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 1. Rhamnus cathartica 55 Yes FAC FACW species 20 x 2= 40 2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 No FACW FAC species 95 x 3= 285 3. FACU species 0 x 4= 0 4. 5. UPL species 0 x 5= 0 6 Column Totals: 115 (A) 325 (B) 7 Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.83 60 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover - 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. 2 X 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 3 _4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. 5 _Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 6. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. 10. Tree—Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. 12 Sapling/shrub—Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 0 =Total Cover Herb—All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Woody vines—All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. height. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes X No Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) No herb species. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: W08-1u Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix _ Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-7 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy Loam 7-12 10YR 5/6 100 Sandy Loam 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(Al) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 1498) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) Stratified Layers(A5) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,1498) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) - Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) - Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) - Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: Refusal at 12 in on gravel. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: Silver View Pond City/County: Ramsey County Sampling Date: 10/24/2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Mounds View State: MN Sampling Point: w08-1w Investigator(s): Mason Steele Section,Township,Range: S07,T030N, R023W Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Toeslope Local relief(concave,convex,none): Concave Slope%: 0-1 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR K, MLRA 91B Lat: 45.10132 Long: -93.214727 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents,wet substratum NWI classification: PFO1C Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: W08 Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Point taken in a PFO dominate by buckthorn. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) _Surface Soil Cracks(86) Surface Water(A1) _Water-Stained Leaves(69) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16) Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(B15) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) - Water Marks(B1) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _Crayfish Burrows(C8) - Sediment Deposits(82) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) -Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) -Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(87) _Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W08-1w Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) %Cover Species Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Populus deltoides 30 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species 2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 No FACW That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 3. Ulmus americana 10 No FACW Total Number of Dominant 4. Rhamnus cathartica 10 No FAC Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 5. 6 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 60 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft ) OBL species 0 x 1= 0 1. Rhamnus cathartica 60 Yes FAC FACW species 20 x 2= 40 2. FAC species 100 x 3= 300 3. FACU species 0 x 4= 0 4. 5. UPL species 0 x 5= 0 6 Column Totals: 120 (A) 340 (B) 7 Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 60 =Total Cover 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. 2 X 3-Prevalence Index is 553.0' _4-Morphological Adaptations' 3. (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. 5. _Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 6. 'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. 10. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. 12 Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 0 =Total Cover Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 1. Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 2. height. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes X No Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) No herb species. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region-Version 2.0 SOILSampling Point: W08-1w Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-7 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy Loam 7-24 10YR 3/2 93 10YR 4/6 7 C M Sandy Loam 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(Al) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Black Histic(A3) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) _ Stratified Layers(A5) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _ Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) X Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) - Sandy Mucky Mineral(51) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Red Parent Material(F21) Sandy Redox(S5) _ Redox Depressions(F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) - Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) - Dark Surface(S7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Silver View Pond Restoration Site Photographs October 26,2023 Appendix D SITE PHOTOGRAPHS D Stantec Client: City of Mounds View Project Number: 193806465 Project: Silver View Pond Restoration Location: Ramsey Co., MN tib;4 '4":„..,6� \\y► ',_t .'ASS; ,+ +. a e '� f' vr r;Ns*:;" 4 ,�+ ; 'M- .q 3`Yt7.,�y�HL ,t {..N.+,M 'A4.4,,,,-0,-.-,,,,,,,,co..„,C1 , �aj ,,♦ �.r ,' �+ x�;�1• '2C „) }�",� r;`r Se- '�' ti 't,(4414‘1'; 3,q rl (� � r'1 ,YM '' �f t ,'r ,+ Y : ;��yy4,..*Ort �K+ ''.r. Xtl�., ,'�'.,d t,. ,r4. rs-'I', �. \‘'‘-'1 � 7,r....,..,'-'.4.4_..... '3 i.. °, "' `E'k. :1111.- 'r.s .9 R./`A. -.1,- J't w+d'� t .,i. »r ! � low- ` .1 �,, e:. '. 'S :�7 f �,s .�_ '�, "+-T•p;, .F' Y. B�. t .r y�!'.tS4,w"".i Y+r. v ' .a.S v+M � � + �,1 ,C .:.. � f' • ...--4-qt „t x�C♦t t�`tt x+ a' tt, 4-;ic , 1, tie. •t, - -... , 4,,i-.T`. ` tisitt "ktr. to. „,, ” i'";/ .bra ''t .r". } S..1.4,..10„k, ti ..kic`j`;_.. s fr, A y ESQ ., 1 � ,.t ` .F 4 " 'r� � 'o 3�. { 1d. 1 '' , . , e. -.,7,!,...''',3'..,, f '''..--,.!...,..A' . '! 4.- • � .,4.''' .-A i¢ � I, t. ' . . j �j ' l t�y14t7, 1,/ z 'h 44.0 , t -- w, er'� " � '' Vi -1,� .: v • T;- � 4,-...tl ' . ,,, kt h ` t ; * i :i e. 14;,),4,6 �,.- I - � - I "r-4rcc . 7 `' ....x.. „}'" W.1 hr� {"". i''', Wit3 r . ' . r'r,tt xd " ' '"t ' ( - �. Y ' + -4-..,/,,,-,..,,.,. 9" x ns0�fy+z' i,r1 �4 ' u .Ate} a ' .1,r 4 ` i r, , ;<i 4w , . .,,,A, ,' ,., ,fe.,, ygw , k. . ,. . W01-1u_1330, photo 1: View North, October 23, 2023 -W01-1u MS231023_1303, photo 1: View North, October 23, 2023- Culvert 1 � ar, , „,,,.,,,,,,,,,,.,,....4)„.• .1v;, s ��, n ... ,yI + 1 S' g :,;4:„f„.1^,,. .:"..20.4, •1 ! �6� Rb ark :3-, : t i{ y+I/ r r; J <l t /6. t� 7. J x . . .,,,i,. , ,; p� ,,7, s: . ., „ , ..., , i ......., , ,,,v,,,,,,,.„, ,, 4,41,_ .„.. , nR.4�.`kL't y, NA' a s.M.-�. v ^]« i,..-_--,,,..,,..„,.mob• +:- t� ,1: r:;. r� • `'._ ' r!'3•I ‘...4„,.. `.P $Y tw�,'ti\ + ,?c, s.;° ,I+. .. a + .�.y*r, '� i'r _. .`�"'Y 1- A I' • tt1,4"..WVW1i4,Wt*,i''''. '. '''.'''' .:--. • ''1, . ti. � i t +� ! t«. .#�M 'r xh. a I^” �` :1yw `` +�^� ..-:mace ,/ ,l � \` Z 'l �Y �,S J. M 0.- Yid sw, t. �. 1l i1 .` ll ¢ Lti k xt M"fiy ► C s>t,- 1 p, pr+y ; �y 'A l Oitr. �., r. • v.,'.. ''�``l �f s X pk ' 3e 4 sr ,i F a .. C \ � F 1 P �. V.4'2::::". , - ` �.V," z'" `-.4,..••.yt �' �y� s+tA ..' y` b + ` P+ x y r 'y„4•,t: \% �J. 3C flirt h \„Y �'ta '' ' t- Vy 'c.He'llu , :bS �tli:ay 4 ! "ft /� - "11� l ,µs-. r/ r' t \�.l Ii) 9' t i 'y' -ii �4''f'�'4iy �.r. .4..4,-..':4•,‘•--...7,"-..,...r : %. -64' W'� .. 4..- •�i1'0.0�;y 2025/10-?313:09`,A:a�,,�\� f . ,�,,„, '. , „, MS231023_1343. photo 1: View Ground, October 23, 2023 - Culvert in W01-1w_1309, photo 1: View South, October 23, 2023-W01-1w blocked off area. 1 ® Stantec Client: City of Mounds View Project Number: 193806465 Project: Silver View Pond Restoration Location: Ramsey Co., MN K., ,� �,i r _.9 ,t { �• r., y} ‘ e#' ltM i�..\ ..,' ‘7.,,,,,"4:4. 4 �'L4 Y. ..\-,,, w vi- " f•h ,Nf,: { ,yrrilY+'4 '1 .t w. !•J 'ti , .v1 M „.T #-,,-- •' -kY _ ,..'::: •„, _Y + vZ , .o{'1 - , ''..f . , Tii, r y, F! +C ',/',,, 'tv-"^'+.� /.l w•.,- r '/ i 71...0 t,:,'!-4 -• - • ' ,.� •'1.•d f , A7 •� `�wV'`��� '.� \. ' 4 �L • „,,..)or., + ...:/..,_044,,,...; ' •'T . �'y�+� rtt -i • S., 't• 't.7 ' sir - .,%+ is � { .yiF•t� ei.',�Y+�� . f,. r - � ,,,T-. ;rj n .. +�n ., n11'.. �y../ 'V: 0 , + ., "VA41".'"" .1111 ,, "�' '�'� , yf.�f iTyy ti +Y '• .4%--47"Y5,47. : f • V ;(k. � ''i:' r ,�• 9 ` �•, ��P 1 w r,• r �.,1v 'Y' --:.i. ` E ,- , • -- ','-4k.''' _ S • • _ "/ .-1,6 �� a 'gyp r _ � G t ` lq _ ySC{ .til " . trP M .. k:J A1l ` " '� e ' � v ' '{ . {� ` e� \ "� ' Je. / •\ .4, ',;;y: -. ,� I�.' • ‘ii.''',--:'.1 ''':1' {.� nI IZoF !1 YR �+� '� e ,. . • .. - V 023-10-23 14,1 • -(17.---.:Af. _ r _.., . �, .5w fVc� 1 !`i,f rte^ ` 4 .1 R: N �` MS231023_1345, photo 1: View Ground, October 23, 2023- Two culverts W02-1w_1414, photo 1: View East, October 23, 2023-W02-1w r` A, '-• J ' ,4. 4• "r r„,„4.7'71.,,,;-:, x . r „ bu• Kt •,br N ..r , 1 ,, „ ,,e,41.:,,.•. +"i7' - rty tip, J p•.q• r 1�� ��\ .•}.f a {' r 't'.H.A\ i t '� ] t f' .t 1 .. ryr x .•e'' �'•+ '� ,'' C t 7 tf ft ,, , , itlipo r „-� ���w <*.�,A....}�,{� •y' ,�p +s�rsf• v^ �k�' ^,� ' r •i•�r.• t� {ayF •-� � _�f � t :) {b x,}SY.y. +ir/li.' "IL; ,i .+. .,',' , D.r �y;:, A� 7al:.::}' { HCl• `� > .it eolefolkty r x:,,i \ y y a' va a" ,e''''''''..11,-.•,,s r t —'1r/q tl l;r �I. a. a'L i � t — ��� 'iw a .,,,,,IN i^f<* _ e f, '1 x'''4••l�,,�{�+ .I'• `mac /f _ '7.. ''W' 1 :i " 'y 1� + y� t 1 • <I�1 :` /'�.. 't f . r .,.,"ZY `.• . .jl _ A?j 'Ti ,� xf t • ��Y,:''.„-'.1 1.� -:.t , / Ic r � r JX--1:::,,,,,,-' t f.{ r ' i,3� / ~ ;tt'.`�'`a ir • L\_ t �q r r { ,.�}� /}� ,c• i'1 11. 4111115Y,/ '¢' '' �-;}4 ° A{+�'�yK J + t ,:. ty . .dy r 3.r/' a s,-24t,-., ,' , R I�'1 4,•,, •,-.. t+-�, '- $.44,1.2, �' M n j ',•,.,'„ fit' �- Oji,* { `fl 1 'T fs-,- +JAW Q.ti, •L +At _xri.. ; -:% ` '.?;;;.....2.,..f....,r•we !li . 0 • .' 3 11.” :4 • 4, , l 1 . e Y, lM `•wg t v%r f a � ..'C t. r .� �� ?' 'am hs; �1 rvPA, " MS231023_1346, photo 1: View Ground, October 23, 2023 - Culvert off W02-1w_1448, photo 1: View North, October 23, 2023 -W02-1w pond 2 Project Number: 193806465 ® Stantec Client: City of Mounds View Project: Silver View Pond Restoration Location: Ramsey Co., MN / i ::.:i. if ‘, , , ; ,. di,: !+,... •.�; ' r i t� W0',.6.6..,:::7.7. e�' :1'01,1 71" ' ' :;1::::11::: 4.'41;1; + +�, P _ .i' X 1(4 S •:7'''it .. .e 1�S'F kP:. ., •i 4 ''kt a'Ar' �� 1 : t� ri S "� `Y\ L �'`fit ° yQ� �yi t` illkt '''yyyy����y'fit ' rl. " } x �� � �' r 410. y •1.ct�•::, ( e '=_'�'-.- 1•' - A iii t \ . _ "•r • .".4... >4 '^T j► ,17y' N. �� Ar -!� ;to 'It i,',,, ,r,: s'..A.n 7y.sh, •f t*,il , y47r.r - r 1* !"'� '''''):1, ,a 1. \'',1i1:. `1p � � �' -` +°.�.W f .,V•hk q yt••. Viii: i4 :,`.i. « t ;� q+. vy�,�h+-g �r. i. 1- r`,4„,,,,,,� sr 'k. ,�.,, Al,Rs"/Y 1 r+Y y:, � +' �.. • 1� 4'4.•,r';:,•- mak.', r • t, .' ':y? s�j�'" y6o-• y ss,— ,l\ 6 • ,� .v�.:. Sa'r J , Air,.i ~ r 1 Yi• . t:.'"'r"t- i t�' -'r • ' s. ,. '.','\, M s' '`2023-.10-23 14.5 • '1 • ‘a` ('tc";• c" ^r �' �,y r �i 4,1�? 2023 10 23 16:,141, ;.r': _ �'_ MS231023_1450, photo 1: View North, October 23, 2023-Overview W03-1w_1614, photo 1: View South, October 23, 2023 W03-1w . . ., 7.r�b'.. ♦.-�,+_y..(.,w �^,n ' v ,,.` - '` r:'qrSYi` 9/•,„r 1 ,.• ��.r•Si �i .r .y' .. � �+ r k. .S >N,4' +R: . x'�9-y•f";::.#:;,, . • ' � g�1y y �.. '1 ' r .: : .. ,� i ; a � / . i � k. • • 1,4„. „,,. 4.. tz ,:a71, ,,* w' .„:,!. M .§, .-r,' '+r ; ti � ; r . 1 ., • T _ � .,....0 14�`�'' 1) , Y ' ,' �) • r t z � r , _� 4 �k , r -rs` 3_, , 4; A ,,,,,v,, I t uiF� • T i � il ”�bs`,"i...-1. • '. nN.a r! M ` 1' ��t 4{h� -1fi • v.,,,,,,-k.; 2 r ` ' + e,� {' i, .. .1 t � �, S , r ,a ? /_ F._, r . ¢ f t . k , it.�'S ` „" Rat ' 9 ' 1r i ` 1* �{L Y raTFi � ' � ‘L ..,Y• W- rZ `,� ' J - -&"7r•!.' i • • -tTam._y r� , l6i�`+i. r • q. •*v- moi S.f• T ..J v .1 1 ✓ '. Y _ � ;� A P �•. I' Vt�� ,1�.P �^ `� • r .a. 'r'�. mit`awl.__ K ,, ate.`� 2003,10.23 16 12 _-_.....#` :d - - -'4ya "K ;, • 2023 10,23 16'50 j' . k k � TF �'' t W03-1u_1608, photo 1: View South, October 23, 2023-W03-1u W04-1u_1650, photo 1: View West, October 23, 2023 -W04-1u Stantec Client: ChyofMounds V�w ProjectNumber: 193806465 ~°m*~ Pnojec : Silver View Pond Restoration Location: Ramsey Co., MN •, . `• •••;1,:t-i . -,.j,f4,:-9.1. . ,,,:fr..-n. -','I'''s ' - ""'''.';•'`-‘ ' " 'It ' S -. ' ,\ -, - - . • , „. p,.. \ VVO4'1v _17OG. photo 1: View South, October 23. 2O23-VVD4-1xv VVOS-1u_1O2G. photo 1: View North, October 24. 2U23'VVO5-1u �~I . , � � �. .' � 1 I 4" r• j';':-. "-.: . _ ' * , - ,I :.rNikk: -. '''••- ,.. N eli t, 4,,..es. , --777:7"i' ---7-'3---:', • ..—,-.4,. , , ' i" ,•,.. '•• It:,.., 1'4.•.de,..,,„„ • ..1r .,,,,., - „.. --;.,;.. W05-1w 1029, photo 1: View West, October 24, 2023-W05-1w MS231023_1713, photo 1: View Northeast, October 23, 2023 -Overview _ 4 ® Stantec Client: City of Mounds View Project Number: 193806465 Project: Silver View Pond Restoration Location: Ramsey Co., MN ` s)/ t . f WN 1 4" '1q a' ;Ai, t J . y " r t 9 a � :::i. it i �+ `. int, a a f' P `• ��rk'p+Y�" i e '';',`,.':',4' „ ':.M7'',', t.� not tM 4.14'4i z _q,„,.,,,, ,,,,,,,,,... _ xtt9L �F' 1 t cA f 3T" $...4...' x .1 e d +'} Cr +�� � 1 1•w I �1 ~ y¢ ,.� �. ,1 w, ;. '��1 t j. • z q '�'�. i 'fie..✓ ` ♦ i '�1 y -•�' ma. h•.. "�� r° rv?t'''�? _ ' �, " l I('t -, r • q ;'fit -,..;,-,1„.„; t•.1 44 ,.',"Fa • r `.., iB ,I, A r + �-yt ,q+1� ' fr, • r r t+, ,r'!' :-.,.,144,--a?.. k�i ^te/.+.. , t, \..-1?"':• P� h„t ru ,p1' j� `C` l�. 44 x � e. y Yl .• ��j �5�,• � '',V41' ' " `t . + • f !� '�1*4L y! .der , .^�i e ;rs T' .} •`,ya • .:L ?r V p �, � vtq r ; i .�-,yY ak r • rc 1 c y'9 r y �• �r µ , , X yr a 'y f8- �+ 0"., • is Y �, '�' «` 'a n� K*.r �r � r'7��� +.,_. ../- � c�• .'_. - , �+f, ,�S,..i � .t, �6 fie? •,�„,t►aai..k...7, t. s i4`� A.7 +tll�`�Y••••`'r .,a "- s' • „Lr 1r :, •-� `n' f.s l �'•.r'c'• 1^.v 'yV'•�'T+'*r..?'is 1» Y ..A A�,�y •�-jam L r S”" a / k t}+t .: „,,, ,. "'�'" .q1+� 1 - ;;;•,,,a,. >,* 1Y,� 1 1,,•,;:. • f `r,w _ }�1a 7, 4.• • Tr s...• \`u .E �. '£`�` 'Y” f$4C1++, � • Ar....,. i t ?.�;tF,. 44._,...:. � � �. 'f y �� vr�t� .�,.C!'Y�+',.� 1 C -' r� � '' (� b2 . � 3 • , `y: �' .k+ 2 23 10 2411:11 „y ;er? MS231024_1038, photo 1: View Southwest, October 24, 2023- Culvert W06-1 u_1111, photo 1: View West, October 24, 2023 -W06-1u • i r `h, t •,y[.a Yd, k 9 t � ', ' d ,.. :,'",,I•YL.:?...::/s,,,L..''. w'aur 'q t1v s--,.., y n:e c) r.y..,FdMr,,43.. .. + G -at y ♦ F rlit �,".- tjttM4 iy1 3 1Y' y .iIi l pe t 0 . . • le: A ii '04 % • • , '- - inYe .. 1_ , ba1P" t ' t e ' "f"r t �` . `tt�`� • i• :.k" '+. .* '', ie� .t .:k , .' .wA.A..4` '••" '..i�{ . -,,A, r' lR stkA . � ,s � �� ' . . r' .�•4.;.4.1, ' ` f ,410*-' ., * „ — nYd ` iK! { - w A{ i �? 4 .' , " r A ., ', l , )vy A+9tY # . sprss :+r „. 7":1,,,i– r. Pi y r i '''''.f:. ` "' 4,44 kY � `�4rua . ` ' '#y Ao . 1'f r 6 V,•,,{,4,3,,.,,',.'"%',4..,4 } ��- - , rqtr� ,ti of _ --,,,,,,•.,` - i. :' ! + r r a • • ! Ls por " - •.7" 74"40 •ef4r 4 " ' 1T _,� :t- . ". .-. *. -'-`e‘- , .S•Sa j' ' — -: . , . 'ij, '''. 4` N"1 — ....All , . t j • -.1-/C' p- 'ifp,.. , a• / M r ".�, 1' \\' �r 'r ,r• ,.n.- 4 �) ��' j^' P')'�bt R�� ;� S�4y,o �7 a�. 'Y �f C}"r ,2023-10.24.11 00 e )I W06-1w_1100, photo 1: View North, October 24, 2023-W06-1w W07-1w_1319, photo 1: View North, October 24, 2023 -W07-1w 5 Project Number: 193806465 Stantec Client: City of Mounds View Project: Silver View Pond Restoration Location: Ramsey Co., MN j n 1: ,�x,. ♦ �.•`.,y' � 1�l+�.. Fik#4�r't! y ..,-,,A,,,,.• ,{ y, it '7,:`\ z• *NI►'47' F A �. ^.�5., \• .v . �'( i�� ' it IN ' • - .Y1b �� G t„,, I 2 +Ry„y * ,,, {, F.. t • ' .F a Ilik p '..0',,,::,:;'-',4 *y,{' 5$a `.r, ,.',,i—.,;•''''.1 t v%' (,IES d r c�:1::,,...; y f' j: �4 p N d i 'yM5? e , il iar• I 1 t. e• ,44., y I • lift .. 1 ' ':�`"'�y441”. - y.'1j • A� �� e, k.�l, 4' �+:, ,.�I Lw M. �� .�.„-4 ih•.�`a ., ,a' ti:,. �a � by Y3'Ly 5�' } S •. � ��� � , .. � t•� 't 'Q �,v' • �f� � A • �'- .'• .�w+`� vV0 .y�' n w j-",i '. N >1 a ) /'. .4,,,,: ‘ `a4+i t-o::•a r ..t. • ' y {Qs 4. j 1 is 4 . .. u ,„,...„?.,,,,.v4,14,04.40, '� 'a '"a a : 9t r �... .y �a rr ,,. d R !� ' t 7, + r iy to F'. • , i A. r s: ,. ` 7 r ? .,, 7.:1;,1/4; :1 •. �yrl`C e'` R r -3 f- , ,/ 4{ t, # ,,, -2�”' -,, /`R �S'_i a Yy��'•ylt�'�� 1e 'aI-i�h!w•"',, 4.04"c, K; � t • ,,•e•t b1._:,to'f , a',-, 12 A y'•�'`E" • 1,1 wA�`y� 'A' fit":. t�+ dyf` ,114. 1. ^, 2b7i�%14 ��'34';x=rv• ''' ' •�'� \ .',r- T;e� 7; . . , 202 0-24 13:56 ! • ,� . �, , _ r. W07-1u_1336, photo 1: View West, October 24, 2023-W07-1 u MS231024_1356, photo 1: View Ground, October 24, 2023- ! -it i ,.,i‘;'''.411.4 Irk. 3 yr fir, .._ ; , , .. 4. i`. w :2 i ,,. tl pr .r" 1, ( ; ,,y f ir, Lai f �e .r: vY a • Lt 1t -• sem•' .,t , .:. 't' y t1-, I••Y c • .Z, aZ,�,�-- • . f �, �.r� , • . • h . � _io`A • k 'y1, Z'+-vy -U4 BMJ ^ i; , , 07'; Y 7a **+ IA, -4 .+it,-;}''it -T• ,� ', Ye YAS` " r +: gx - TT ii'.4 as al ' �c , 7J » =sy r. ,M 2.:-t wr ,„ t: - s. -0 "I1= , •9 , r2023-10-24 1 :39 r MS231024_1339, photo 1: View South, October 24, 2023-Area under MS231024_1357, photo 1: View Southeast, October 24, 2023 -Overview construction 6 ® Stantec Client: City of Mounds View Project Number: 193806465 Project: Silver View Pond Restoration Location: Ramsey Co., MN •'1,. . '`4..T/+ _ _- _ ,r: \ \\. r ie x ti _ c. ♦ •f .-0--M,'ryi a... , ... 4,1?....,.,-.... I \ 141. iljjj'''i Mr.e Ti JP' —\• ^(' ♦ moiA,\ , 1,...,:4 c•• ,.6 1Yr � 7I �+` 1 ''•�� •! ..:.t•' ofr.. % ', • -- :MM -1 .y, f, ft,;:. o, ^. . ' ..41? 41 r � . • ' 61 �, ,^- o,-mss R .. 2"7. /1.0-24 14:01 ! • A-0-. , k*, '-'s ' .4,,.,,,-,�iF. 2023 10 24 14:33 _ . . W08-1u_1401, photo 1: View South, October 24, 2023 -W08-1u MS231024_1433, photo 1: View Southwest, October 24, 2023-Overview - �1'0. . `' '7y..�,-ct1 ,,s.,t -,f,:....4.,.-„, i.1 .. i\ . > ,r- - 4!;t4 Y. .km1 •a r •- • t.••e . i _. , 1 1 , 2023- - , ' W08-1w_1403, photo 1: View Southeast, October 24, 2023-W08-1w 7 8C Stantec MOUNDS VIEW SILVER VIEW PARK POND Upland Vegetation Restoration Plan January 19, 2024 Prepared for: City of Mounds View Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc Project Number: 193806465 The conclusions in the Report titled Mounds View Silver View Park Pond are Stantec's professional opinion, as of the time of the Report, and concerning the scope described in the Report. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the scope of work was conducted and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The Report relates solely to the specific project for which Stantec was retained and the stated purpose for which the Report was prepared. The Report is not to be used or relied on for any variation or extension of the project, or for any other project or purpose, and any unauthorized use or reliance is at the recipient's own risk. Stantec has assumed all information received from City of Mounds View(the"Client") and third parties in the preparation of the Report to be correct. While Stantec has exercised a customary level of judgment or due diligence in the use of such information, Stantec assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any error or omission contained therein. This Report is intended solely for use by the Client in accordance with Stantec's contract with the Client. While the Report may be provided by the Client to applicable authorities having jurisdiction and to other third parties in connection with the project, Stantec disclaims any legal duty based upon warranty, reliance or any other theory to any third party, and will not be liable to such third party for any damages or losses of any kind that may result. Prepared by: Signature Larissa Mott!, Senior Ecologist / wi Reviewed by: Sarah Harding, Senior Landscape Architect 11 Approved by: _— Dan Edgerton, Project Manager Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 4 2 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 3 VEGETATION RESTORATION RECOMMENDATIONS 6 3.1 Dry-Mesic Oak Woodland Existing Cover Type 8 3.2 Nonnative Woodland Existing Cover Type 10 3.3 Lowland Hardwoods Existing Cover Type 12 3.4 Nonnative Grass-Dominated Existing Cover Types 15 3.5 Stormwater Pond Buffer Existing Cover Type 17 3.6 Wetland Existing Cover Type 17 4 VEGETATION RESTORATION ACTIVITIES &COST ESTIMATES 19 4.1 Activity Types 19 4.1.1 Tree Removal 20 4.1.2 Invasive Shrub Control 20 4.1.3 Herbaceous Weed Control 21 4.1.4 Native Seeding 21 4.1.5 Native Plug Planting 22 4.2 Cost Estimates 22 5 VEGETATION MAINTENANCE 22 6 POTENTIAL GRANT FUNDING 23 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Existing Vegetation Cover Types in the Project Area 5 Table 2 Summary of Recommended Vegetation Cover Types 7 Table 3 Vegetation Restoration Cost Estimates 22 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Silver View Park 2023 Existing Land Cover Map 6 Figure 2 Silver View Park Upland Vegetation Proposed Land Cover Map 7 Figure 3 1940 Aerial Photo of Silver View Park 10 Figure 4 1991 Aerial Photo of Silver View Park 14 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond 1 Introduction This plan provides upland vegetation ecological restoration and management recommendations for the Silver View Park Pond Restoration Planning project area in Mounds View. About 7 acres of upland vegetation were observed and mapped surrounding Ponds EW-4 and EW-4.P3 as shown in Figure 1. Stantec staff conducted field surveys on August 18 and September 8, 2023. Additional observations included trail conditions, slopes, and erosion concerns that relate to vegetation restoration and management goals. The following sections include summaries of existing conditions, opportunities for non-vegetated improvements that support restoration goals and objectives, and proposed vegetation restoration and management goals, objectives, and cost estimates for initial restoration and future maintenance. • Restoration goals are provided to articulate desired future vegetation cover types and functional values. The goals are designed to support water quality protection, high-quality wildlife habitat, and native plant diversity, and enhance park visitor activities and amenities, using sustainable, cost-effective, long-term vegetation management strategies. • Restoration objectives provide the detailed desired future conditions that help determine the selection of vegetation management methods and materials. The objectives provide measurable metrics that can be used to determine progress towards achieving restoration goals. High-level cost estimates are provided to aid in understanding the overall scope of funding needed for vegetation management and to help prioritize restoration activities given potential funding constraints or opportunities. The estimates assume that Mounds View pursues the restoration goals and objectives as described for each cover type. The estimates are based on outsourcing vegetation restoration and management activities to ecological restoration contractors in current market conditions. 2 Overview of Existing Conditions Vegetation cover types were identified based on vegetation structure, composition, and current management (such as mowed versus unmowed). Six upland vegetation cover types over 7 acres in total area were mapped along with a 5.5-acre wetland complex of shrub-swamp and forested wetland communities as shown in Figure 1. The wetland complex was observed for restoration potential as well. The vegetation cover types are summarized in Table 1 along with acreages and key vegetation characteristics. Project Number: 193806465 4 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond Table 1 Existing Vegetation Cover Types in the Silver View Park Pond Restoration Planning Project Area Vegetation Cover Type Acres Key Characteristics Dry-mesic oak woodland 0.5 Bur oak and pin oak canopy; native shrubs and ground cover; nonnative trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants _ present throughout Nonnative woodland 0.8 Black locust dominated canopy; patchy to bare ground cover; native trees, shrubs/vines, and ground layer plants present but not abundant Lowland hardwoods 3.5 Cottonwood, boxelder, elm, aspen canopy; invasive trees present throughout; native shrubs/vines present; dense buckthorn cover; native ground cover present but patchy _ and low abundance Nonnative grasses-mowed 1.6 Mowed nonnative, cool season grasses Nonnative grasses–mowed 0.5 Mowed nonnative, cool season grasses with scattered with scattered trees landscape trees including hardwoods and conifers Stormwater pond buffer 0.2 Unmowed herbaceous cover along drainage and slopes of basin/pond; dominated by nonnative grasses with sparse cover by native grasses, sedges, &forbs Wetland 5.5 Shrub swamp and forested wetland with cottonwood and boxelder canopy; buckthorn dense in forested wetland; glossy buckthorn common in the shrub swamp; purple loosestrife and hybrid cattail dense in open wetland areas Invasive plant cover was generally high throughout the park and in all upland vegetation layers—canopy, understory, and ground layers. Invasive trees included black locust, Siberian elm, white poplar, white mulberry, and Amur maple. These tree species were present in the canopies of wooded areas and also as saplings and root suckers in wooded understories. Common buckthorn, glossy buckthorn, and honeysuckle were present in shrub layers. Invasive herbaceous plants observed were reed canary grass, smooth brome, hybrid cattails, purple loosestrife, Canada thistle, leafy spurge, creeping Charlie, and garlic mustard. Other problematic herbaceous weeds present included bittersweet nightshade, burdock, and motherwort. Project Number: 193806465 5 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond 1 -� _ y /..max— \ � ' .� -i A _ \ „ .,�.. ,•.- ,--_ - 'f --I\ Pond EW-4 P3 A' li 4, " y aver c \ts:.., „...fr ' ' e,a;; o . .1i. Pond EW-4 r, r •'.r.,,' ti' til ' ,7aq111, 71 tyoi'.'> ,.:- t(itile,' � Y ' , --A -0em- ., Airfr . .r I-, .- ,-'-t—.{ 1:171 :.x. `�, Mounds View Silver View Park:2023 Existing Land Cover 03iwer View Park Land Cover Types: mowed ncrr-- grass-;3,._-i-re._I i- -- Tra,ls VI dry-mesio oak woodlano mowed nor-a;:se grasses Ziorenative woodland stormwater pond buffer(mixed nonnative&natwe vegetation) , lowland hardwoods _-._ shrub swamp and forested wetland � 4) n: i F Figure 1 Silver View Park 2023 Existing Land Cover Map 3 Vegetation Restoration Recommendations Vegetation restoration recommendations are provided for each of the existing cover types in the following sections. The recommendations consider existing conditions, Mounds View community member survey responses, non-vegetated improvements that support restoration goals, and the feasibility, sustainability, and costs associated with both short-term restoration efforts and long-term maintenance. Vegetation restoration and management actions that will improve pond buffer functionality, support water quality protection, enhance wildlife habitat, enhance native wetland, increase native plant diversity, and enhance park visitor recreational and nature experiences are prioritized. An overview map of recommended vegetation cover types is provided in Figure 2 and a summary list of cover types and acres in Table 2. 5 Project Number: 193806465 6 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond Table 2 Summary of Recommended Vegetation Cover Types Vegetation Cover Type Acres Pin Oak—Bur Oak Woodland 1.3 Lowland Hardwoods 3.5 Native Ground Cover 1.9 Stormwater Pond Buffer 0.2 Wet Meadow/Carr& Hardwood 5.5 Swamp I . 1 � \� om . -,'`..,e,- � yLi,tA _ /` $ . .: �.r `yr ` _ y l. 43- - l.ff - r . am i " ` + ~•'' i '-l '- e A / 6 Jt-4R 4 w c 41,J\ Pond EW-4P3‘ ,,, -s`. 3 .1 ,7;-, 'r Pond EW-4 .� J _• f � x ' ' .. .: 10.:Pt/ ,-.1f— ' • 0 ••• --' • •:41! — , ,:. 'V. ----.1 ;jA4 a,, y t -11. - -t . Mounds View Silver View Park:Proposed Land Cover Silver View Park Proposed Cover TypesSE Wet MeadowrCarr and --_]Trails all Bur Oak-Pin Oak Woodland Hardwood Swamp MO Lowland Hardwoods Maintain as Mowed Normative Grasses with Scattered Trees Native Ground Cover r` 0 ':A 20.) aj Stante[ Figure 2 Silver View Park Upland Vegetation Proposed Land Cover Map ® Project Number: 193806465 7 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond 3.1 Dry-Mesic Oak Woodland Existing Cover Type Two small upland wooded areas near Pond EW-4.P3 comprise a total of about 0.5-acre of dry-mesic oak woodland with canopy cover dominated by bur and pin oaks that range from 8 inches to over 24 inches in diameter at breast height(DBH).A few oaks southwest of the pond are over 30-inch DBH. The oaks in this cover type are visible in a 1940 aerial photo, Figure 3, when the site was farmed, and the woodland areas were likely grazed. Boxelder was common in the canopy during the 2023 survey, along with a few black cherry and invasive, nonnative white mulberry. Some of the oaks had a somewhat open-grown growth habit, reflecting the more open historic growing conditions. Boxelder occurred occasionally beneath the oak canopy as well, along with a few American elm, pin oak, nonnative Norway maple, and nonnative, invasive Amur maple. The shrub/sapling layers of the woodlands were dominated by common buckthorn, with occasional green ash. Native shrubs such as black raspberry and red-berried elder were present but infrequent. Ground cover was generally sparse, but most often composed of the native vine Virginia creeper and the native forb white snakeroot, with occasional native violets and nonnative, invasive garlic mustard. Overall, the oak canopy and old-growth oak trees are unique and notable features for upland vegetation within the project area. Due to the old-growth oaks in this cover type, restoration towards a native plant community(NPC) resembling Pin Oak—Bur Oak Woodland (FDs37b) is recommended. This woodland NPC has been mapped and described based on vegetation plots sampled by the Minnesota Biological Survey. The following weblink provides a MN DNR fact sheet describing the vegetation structure and composition, landscape setting and soils, and natural history of Pin Oak—Bur Oak Woodlands. https.//files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural resources/npc/fire dependent forest/fds37.pdf Vegetation Management Goal • Restore to a plant community resembling Pin Oak—Bur Oak Woodland (FDs37b)with improved wildlife habitat, native plant diversity, and water infiltration capacity. Vegetation Management Objectives • Canopy cover is over 50% and dominated by bur oak and pin oak, with occasional black cherry. Boxelder and American elm are removed from the canopy and understory to reduce competition with oaks and increase light to ground layer vegetation. • All invasive, nonnative trees (white mulberry, Norway maple, and Amur maple)and saplings are removed. • Native shrub cover is about 25-50% and composed of species such as black raspberry, red- berried elder, gooseberry, chokecherry,American hazelnut, and gray dogwood. Tree saplings of green ash, boxelder, hackberry, and elm are eliminated. Project Number: 193806465 8 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond • Invasive, nonnative shrub cover(common buckthorn, glossy buckthorn, Tartarian honeysuckle) is reduced to less than 5%. • Herbaceous ground layer vegetation cover is increased to over 75%and dominated by native grasses, sedges, and forbs, such as those listed in the table below. Garlic mustard cover is less than 5%. • Nearly continuous ground layer cover is maintained to promote water infiltration. • Diverse ground layer vegetation is established using diverse native seed mixes and plugs that include species that can provide floral resources for pollinators throughout the growing season. Dry— Mesic Oak Woodland - Desired Future Conditions Overview BUR OAK— PIN OAK WOODLAND Vegetation Layer Cover(%) Representative Plant Species Canopy >50 Bur oak, pin oak, black cherry Subcanopy 5-25 Bur oak, pin oak Black raspberry, red-berried elder, gooseberry, chokecherry, American Shrub/Sapling 25-50 hazelnut, gray dogwood, Virginia creeper; seedlings and saplings of canopy species Bottlebrush grass, silky wild rye, Pennsylvania sedge, Sprengel's sedge, Herbaceous common woodland sedge, white snakeroot, violets, enchanter's (Ground) 75-100 nightshade, false Solomon's seal, Clayton's sweet cicely, wild geranium, lopseed, large-leaved aster, wild columbine, calico aster, arrowleaf aster, zig-zag goldenrod, tall bellflower, black-eyed Susan Project Number: 193806465 9 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond — ... 4.. . sirs lir „'- s �� t lh .. f! %r$ r , , u. i . . , , . ,...., ,. . . !, .,- ,, -1. .,..... .„ _-_ , • ..st "'s'•,•”- -* •- t- 1 jib. 3 I ...5rh .1. ; L . P '• tr 4y ,i «Se" *411111- lot li.) 1' _ . i . t1 - - z ---.- Mwidis Vier Silver Vier Park:1940 Laid Cowl Qsihrer View Park L/(-� :i r✓; SM StarMac �:-� fk:fCim.r<etCI,atI.M.--a MA.IMDS MAI Av:YYd Aria FT:I,eyo "Mir,_'IMC'+•cle }99EOMAS Figure 3 1940 Aerial Photo of Silver View Park 3.2 Nonnative Woodland Existing Cover Type About 0.8 acre of nonnative woodland cover was mapped along the northwest drainage into the park from Silver Lake Road. This area has steep slopes. The canopy was dominated by black locust, with occasional cottonwood, elm, and a few red pines. Some of the cottonwoods in this area have 24-to 30- inch stems. Buckthorn is common throughout, with occasional honeysuckle and hackberry saplings. Ground cover is sparse to patchy and composed of Virginia creeper and white snakeroot. Garlic mustard is common. This woodland area contains a sensitive drainage feature with steep slopes lacking continuous ground cover for soil erosion control and water infiltration and retention. Pin Oak—Bur Oak Woodland is recommended as a general target plant community composition for this cover type. Restoration will require substantial canopy removal due to existing cover by invasive, ® Project Number: 193806465 10 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond nonnative black locust. However, the canopy removal will enable better establishment of continuous ground layer vegetation for improved water infiltration and slope stabilization along the drainage. Oak trees and other hardwoods can then be planted to fill in the canopy. Cottonwood and red pine are not typically in Pin Oak—Bur Oak Woodland but are currently present and can be maintained as part of the canopy composition. Vegetation Management Goal • Plant community resembling Pin Oak—Bur Oak Woodland (FDs37b)with improved wildlife habitat, native plant diversity, and water infiltration capacity. Vegetation Management Objectives • Canopy cover is over 50% and dominated by bur oak and white oak, with occasional black cherry, red pine, and cottonwood. Pin oak and northern red oak are avoided for supplemental planting due to their high susceptibility to oak wilt. • All invasive, nonnative trees (primarily black locust) and saplings are removed. Native trees will need to be planted to increase canopy cover after invasive, nonnative trees are removed. • Native shrub cover is about 10-25% and composed of species such as black raspberry, red- berried elder, gooseberry, chokecherry, American hazelnut, and gray dogwood. • Invasive, nonnative shrub cover(common buckthorn, glossy buckthorn, tartarian honeysuckle) is reduced to less than 5%. • Herbaceous ground layer vegetation cover is increased to over 75%and dominated by native grasses, sedges, and forbs, such as those listed in the table below. Invasive, nonnative herbaceous cover is less than 5%. • Nearly continuous ground layer cover is maintained to promote water infiltration and soil stabilization. • Diverse ground layer vegetation is established using native seed mixes and plugs that include species that can provide floral resources for pollinators throughout the growing season. Project Number: 193806465 11 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond Nonnative Woodland - Desired Future Conditions Overview BUR OAK- PIN OAK WOODLAND Vegetation o Layer Cover(/o) Representative Plant Species Canopy >50 Bur oak, white oak, black cherry, hackberry,American elm, aspen, cottonwood, red pine Shrub/Sapling 10-25 Black raspberry, red-berried elder, gooseberry, chokecherry, American hazelnut, gray dogwood, Virginia creeper Bottlebrush grass, silky wild rye, Pennsylvania sedge, Sprengel's sedge, Herbaceous common woodland sedge, white snakeroot, violets, enchanter's (Ground) 75-100 nightshade, false Solomon's seal, Clayton's sweet cicely, wild geranium, lopseed, large-leaved aster, wild columbine, calico aster, arrowleaf aster, zig-zag goldenrod, tall bellflower, black-eyed Susan 3.3 Lowland Hardwoods Existing Cover Type The lowland hardwoods cover type was mapped across a total of 3.5 acres of the project area. About 2 acres occurred within very narrow strips along the pond shoreline. An aerial photo from 1991, Figure 4, illustrates that much of the hardwood cover along the shoreline has established over the last 30 years. Along some stretches of shoreline in 2023, this cover type was essentially only a couple of feet wide with trees and shrubs rooted in vertical banks and much of the canopy cover over water. Along other stretches, there were steep banks that dropped off from the mowed trail edges. The banks were covered by native shrubs but lacked ground cover below. Much of the steep-banked shoreline that did not have herbaceous ground cover was eroded and bare. Lowland hardwood canopy cover varied but was generally 50-75%. Boxelder was most common in the canopy, with occasional cottonwood, Siberian elm, and amur chokecherry. River birch and Amur chokecherry appear to have been intentionally planted around the pond. Other native trees that occur in this cover type, though infrequently, included paper birch, quaking aspen, black walnut, hackberry, silver maple, and black cherry. Invasive trees that occur occasionally throughout the lowland hardwoods were white mulberry, white poplar, and Siberian elm. In addition to Amur chokecherry, nonnative weeping willow and crabapple trees were present as well. Saplings of all the native canopy species were observed in the understory. One 4-inch bur oak was observed along the north shoreline in the understory. Common buckthorn and glossy buckthorn were the most common shrubs, comprising nearly continuous cover in much of the mapped lowland hardwood areas. They have formed thickets that significantly limit shoreline views of the pond from the paved trail and have also significantly restricted or eliminated native shrub and herbaceous plant growth. Buckthorn thickets also occurred under lowland hardwoods Project Number: 193806465 12 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond disconnected from the shoreline. Native shrubs such as red-osier dogwood, gray dogwood, and elderberry were common to occasional. Ground cover ranged from sparse to continuous, with areas of open canopy more likely to have continuous cover by nonnative grasses such as smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, or reed canary grass. White snakeroot, a disturbance-adapted native forb, was the most commonly encountered native forb. Garlic mustard, creeping Charlie, purple loosestrife, leafy spurge, and Canada thistle are problematic broadleaf invasive plants associated with this cover type. Several trees have been planted along the north shoreline in canopy gaps. Planted species noted during the 2023 field surveys included sycamore, bald cypress, tamarack, hackberry, and Kentucky coffee tree. Shoreline vegetation cover in the mapped lowland hardwoods cover type is in general a sensitive and important feature for stabilizing the banks of the pond and creating diverse wildlife habitat. Several wood ducks were observed during both field visits foraging in the south arm of the pond where woody vegetation hangs over shallow water and downed trees/branches are present. Maintaining lowland hardwood cover is recommended for all of the areas mapped as that cover type based on 2023 observations. Vegetation management objectives focus on removal of invasive, nonnative plants, increasing native short-statured herbaceous cover and species diversity, and enhancing pond and wildlife views. Some shoreline locations may require installation of bank stabilization features along with invasive plant removal and revegetation with native plant materials. In some areas, including the west side of the south pond lobe, the existing bituminous loop path is near the shoreline; combined with existing steep, eroded shoreline banks, long-term maintenance of a stable shoreline will be difficult. The existing bituminous path is also showing signs of degradation with horizontal and longitudinal pavement cracking in some areas. We recommend shifting the path further from the shore when reconstructing it to reduce shoreline slopes where it is steep and eroded, in order to improve shoreline stability and ease of long-term maintenance. Vegetation Management Goal • Lowland hardwood plant communities with improved shoreline stabilization capacity, pond buffer qualities, wildlife habitat, native plant diversity, and enhanced views of the pond and associated wildlife. Project Number: 193806465 13 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond J..• • 4, tap 4 _.ti 4 i'., . .4., yea ... Y . Iz .(r.. tt ` ay t t tfr i '� ..fit 4 ' L );4- ‘,1%,' , # l 4 ,,,. . , , .., ,,,, ,, , , , ..„ , ,,.,.. ;516 4,, ,,-.., 77.: 1,,,, .7..; .: s e,._, :.• ..• , irt---. .:• 1 .r.,____. ii. ,,,,, „A z r~ Mounds View Silver View Park:1991 Land Cover Dsaver View Park(approx) alt n', 5CU Stantec K`l F 1 Co'a i._crcec:C'f d V-a,rrE'•;',..N•"S..ai^G-rr c's,a.k1..,i lxl:aria:,-,,:.. •9:ftiMAS Figure 4 1991 Aerial Photo of Silver View Park Vegetation Management Objectives • Canopy cover is 50-75% and composed of native hardwoods such as boxelder, cottonwood, river birch, paper birch, quaking aspen, black walnut, hackberry, silver maple, American elm, and black cherry. Future canopy cover may include sycamore, bald cypress, tamarack, and Kentucky coffee tree—species that have been planted as of 2023 around the pond. • Invasive, nonnative trees (white mulberry, white poplar, Siberian elm, amur maple) are eliminated. Nonnative trees such as weeping willow, crabapple, and amur chokecherry are replaced with native hardwoods over time as they deteriorate in condition. • Native shrub cover is 25-50% and composed of species such as black raspberry, red-berried elder, common elderberry, gooseberry, chokecherry, gray dogwood. Shrub cover is patchy to maintain good pond visibility for pedestrians from the surrounding trail. ® Project Number 193806465 14 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond • Invasive, nonnative shrub cover(common buckthorn, glossy buckthorn, Tartarian honeysuckle) is reduced to less than 5%. • Herbaceous ground layer vegetation cover is over 75%and dominated by native grasses, sedges, and forbs. Invasive herbaceous plant cover by species such as Canada thistle, leafy spurge, garlic mustard, creeping Charlie, purple loosestrife, smooth brome, and reed canary grass is less than 5%. • Diverse ground layer vegetation is established using diverse native seed mixes and plugs that include species that can provide floral resources for pollinators throughout the growing season. LOWLAND HARDWOODS Desired Future Conditions Overview Vegetation Layer Cover(%) Representative Plant Species Boxelder, cottonwood, river birch, paper birch, quaking aspen, black Canopy 50-75 walnut, hackberry, silver maple, American elm, black cherry, Kentucky coffee tree(and planted sycamore, bald cypress, and tamarack) Black raspberry, red raspberry, red-berried elder, common elderberry, gooseberry, chokecherry, gray dogwood, Virginia creeper, sandbar Shrub/Sapling 25-50 willow, blackberry; tree saplings may include canopy species listed above along with basswood and bur oak Variable depending upon specific location; mesic hardwood, woodland Herbaceous edge, and/or wet meadow/shoreline species; native species currently (Ground) 75-100 present include bluejoint, white snakeroot, sensitive fern, ostrich fern, violets, Solomon's seal, panicled aster, stinging nettle,jewelweeds, blue vervain, Canada goldenrod, and spotted Joe-pye weed 3.4 Nonnative Grass-Dominated Existing Cover Types About 2.1 acres of the project area were mowed as of 2023. The total includes about 1.6 acres without canopy cover and about 0.5 acre with mowed lawn and scattered hardwood and conifer landscape trees. About a 3-foot mowed trail buffer was excluded from this total. Converting most of the mowed areas to native ground cover is recommended to enhance buffering for the ponds with deep-rooted native grass-dominated vegetation. Diverse native ground cover with short- statured grasses, sedges, and forbs will provide improved water infiltration, year-round wildlife habitat, seasonal blooms, fall color, and winter beauty. MN State Seed Mixes can be used as a starting point for customizing seed mixes for native ground cover in the park. Areas with little to no canopy cover should be considered for a mesic prairie mix with an emphasis on short-statured grasses, such little bluestem, sideoats grama, prairie dropseed, and June grass, that can 5 Project Number: 193806465 15 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond provide cover and diversity without obscuring park and pond views. The shorter grasses will also maintain better views of wildflowers in the plantings. For areas with scattered canopy cover or shade during a portion of the day, a savanna or woodland edge seed mix will be more appropriate. The seed mix should contain shade-adapted species. After the initial 3-to 4-year establishment phase, annual maintenance for native plantings should provide cost savings over mowing maintenance. Mowing will still be needed along the trail sides and for access to park amenities (such as benches, swings, disc golf features), but can be significantly reduced. Mowing is recommended for continuing lawn maintenance on slivers of park land north of the trail along the north side of Silver View Pond for continuity with adjacent larger expanses of lawn on neighboring properties. The northeast corner of the park along Long Lake Road is another location where it may make the most sense to continue with the current mowing maintenance regime. Vegetation Management Goal • Native plant cover resembling short-statured prairie or savanna understory with improved water infiltration capacity, wildlife habitat, and native plant diversity. Vegetation Management Objectives • Continuous ground cover by diverse native herbaceous species, represented by deep-rooted, drought-tolerant grasses, sedges, and forbs. • Herbaceous ground cover composition is designed to match light availability—open canopy versus partial canopy/woodland edge. • Flowering plants provide blooms throughout the growing season to enhance pollinator habitat. Nonnative Grass-Dominated Cover Type - Desired Future Conditions Overview NATIVE GROUND COVER Vegetation Layer Cover(%) Representative Plant Species Canopy variable Existing scattered hardwood and conifer landscape trees Short-statured native prairie grasses, sedges, and forbs in areas with Herbaceous open canopy; short-statured native savanna/woodland grasses, sedges, (Ground) 100 and forbs in areas with scattered trees and shade during portions of the day Project Number: 193806465 16 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond 3.5 Stormwater Pond Buffer Existing Cover Type Unmowed herbaceous vegetation cover surrounds Pond EW-4.P3, northwest of Pond EW-4. Cover is primarily dominated by nonnative grasses such as brome and reed canary grass. Native plants that were observed commonly near the water's edge included wild mint, northern water plantain, and beggar's ticks. Other native plants included sensitive fern, giant goldenrod, panicled aster, broadleaf arrowhead, jewelweeds, blue vervain, violets, and a few occurrences of rice cutgrass and American manna grass. Canada thistle was common and purple loosestrife occurred occasionally around the pond as well. Vegetation Management Goal • Native plant cover with improved water infiltration capacity, wildlife habitat, and native plant diversity. Vegetation Management Objective • Continuous ground cover by diverse native herbaceous species, represented by deep-rooted grasses, sedges, and forbs. Stormwater Pond Buffer Cover T •e - Desired Future Conditions Overview NATIVE GROUND COVER Vegetation Layer Cover(%) Representative Plant Species Herbaceous Mesic prairie and woodland edge species on mid-to upper slopes; wet Ground 100 meadow species on lower slopes and within the draina•e 3.6 Wetland Existing Cover Type About 5.5 acres of shrub-swamp and forested wetlands occur in the project area. Along the east side of the south arm of Pond EW-4, the forested wetland had canopy cover by cottonwoods and boxelder with buckthorn below. Much of the remaining wetland cover was degraded Willow-Dogwood Shrub Swamp. Shrub/sapling cover was generally less than 50% and dominated by invasive shrubs, common and glossy buckthorn, and invasive, nonnative cattails, purple loosestrife, and reed canary grass. Native sandbar willow, red-osier dogwood, and Bebb's willow occurred occasionally. The wetland had scattered canopy cover by cottonwood, elm, boxelder, and quaking aspen, providing less than 25% canopy cover overall. Native plants in the herbaceous layer included swamp smartweed, giant goldenrod, panicled aster, starry false Solomon's seal, fowl manna grass, clearweed, sensitive fern, small-spike false nettle, bristly sedge, and monkeyflower. Herbaceous cover was sparse under thickets of buckthorn. 5 Project Number: 193806465 17 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond Wetland restoration is recommended to improve protection of water quality, provide higher quality wildlife habitat, and sustain diverse native plant communities. Removing invasive shrubs in the understory as part of the restoration process will also enhance park user views of the wetland habitat, pond, and associated wildlife. Northern Wet Meadow/Carr(WMn82) is recommended as a target native plant community for all but the forested portion of the wetland complex. Northern Wet Meadow/Carr is an open wetland with continuous cover by grasses, sedges, and forbs adapted to saturated soils and periodic inundation. When this wetland community has over 25% shrub cover, it is classified by the MN DNR as Willow—Dogwood Shrub Swamp (WMn82a). Several species of willow, red-osier dogwood, speckled alder, and sometimes bog birch may be present.A MN DNR fact sheet describing this wetland plant community is available at the following weblink: https.//files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural resources/npc/wet meadow carr/wmn82.pdf For the forested portion of the wetland complex, the community should remain forested as a"Hardwood Swamp" but can be significantly enhanced through invasive shrub removal and native seeding/planting. Vegetation Management Goal • Wetlands resembling Northern Wet Meadow/Carr and Hardwood Swamp with improved water filtration capacity, wildlife habitat, and native plant diversity. Northern Wet Meadow/Carr Vegetation Management Objectives • Canopy cover is absent to sparse. Trees present may include species such as ash, elm, cottonwood, boxelder, quaking aspen, and willow. • Shrub cover may be variable, ranging from sparse to intermittent(0-75%) across the wetland complex. Shrub cover is dominated by native species such as red-osier dogwood and willows. • Invasive shrub cover is reduced to less than 5%. • Herbaceous ground layer cover is increased to over 75%throughout and composed of diverse native herbaceous species, represented by wetland grasses, sedges, and forbs. Hardwood Swamp Vegetation Management Objectives • Canopy cover is intermittent to continuous (over 75%)and composed of native hardwoods such as cottonwood, boxelder, hackberry, and elm. • Subcanopy cover may be present, variable in cover, and composed of native canopy species. • Shrub/sapling layer cover is 25-75%, composed of native wetland shrubs such as elderberry, willow, red-osier dogwood, silky dogwood, and nannyberry. • Herbaceous ground layer cover is increased to over 50%, with a diverse composition of native shade-tolerant wetland grasses, sedges, and forbs. Project Number: 193806465 18 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond Shrub-Swamp Wetland Cover Type - Desired Future Conditions Overview Northern Wet Meadow/Carr Vegetation Layer Cover(%) Representative Plant Species Canopy <5 May include ash, elm, boxelder, cottonwood, aspen, willow Shrub <5 to 75 Willows, red-osier dogwood, silky dogwood, elderberry, nannyberry, gooseberry Native sedges and grasses, such as lake sedge, bristly sedge, tussock Herbaceous sedge, woolgrass, dark green bulrush, and bluejoint; native forbs and (Ground) 75-100 ferns such as tufted loosestrife, marsh skullcap, northern bugleweed, northern marsh fern,jewelweed, swamp smartweed, clearweed, swamp milkweed, broad-leaved arrowhead, and many others Forested Wetland Cover Type - Desired Future Conditions Overview Hardwood Swam• Vegetation Layer Cover(%) Representative Plant Species Canopy 75-100 Cottonwood, boxelder, ash, elm, quaking aspen, hackberry Subcanopy variable Cottonwood, boxelder, ash, elm, quaking aspen, hackberry Shrub 25-75 Elderberry, willow, red-osier dogwood, silky dogwood, and nannyberry Herbaceous Bristly sedge, bladder sedge, bluejoint,Virginia wild rye, cardinal flower, (Ground) 50-100 cut-leaved coneflower, willowherb, violets, panicled aster, sneezeweed, monkeyflower, Joe pye-weed, boneset, and many others 4 Vegetation Restoration Activities & Cost Estimates 4.1 Activity Types The goals and objectives outlined above for each cover type can be accomplished by implementing best management practices for ecological restoration and vegetation management. The following sections describe the activities anticipated for vegetation restoration and maintenance around the ponds. The activities are most effective when integrated. For example, invasive plant control should be combined with seeding/planting to replace the invasive plant cover with desirable vegetation.Additionally, some of the activities such as invasive shrub control and herbaceous weed control will require multiple treatments over several years. The cost estimates provided in Section 4.2 anticipate the need for multiple treatments during an initial 3 years of more intense vegetation restoration effort. Project Number: 193806465 19 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond 4.1.1 TREE REMOVAL Tree removal is recommended for invasive, nonnative trees throughout the project area and for select native trees in the areas recommended for Bur Oak—Pin Oak Woodland restoration. The black locust stands near Silver Lake Road will involve the bulk of the tree removal effort. Invasive trees are otherwise scattered through the Lowland Hardwood areas. Tree removals should be planned for dormant seasons with frozen ground conditions to minimize ground disturbance and impacts to understory vegetation. Stumps should be treated with herbicide specifically proven to kill the root systems and prevent re-sprouts of target trees. Black locust and white poplar are prolific at root suckering, so any existing suckers should be cut and treated as well. Seedlings and saplings of black locust, white poplar, white mulberry, Siberian elm, and Amur maple will need to be spot treated by foliar applications during the growing season or cut/stump treatments. Eliminating these tree species elsewhere in the park will help eliminate seed production and potential re-colonization of the project area. Tree removal bids can be solicited on a cost per acre or on a per-tree basis, depending upon the scale of a restoration project. For the relatively small scale of work at Silver View Park, conducting an inventory of trees slated for removal and field marking each tree will enable development of more detailed bid specifications for more accurate contractor pricing. 4.1.2 INVASIVE SHRUB CONTROL Invasive shrub control will primarily involve common buckthorn, but glossy buckthorn,Tartarian honeysuckle and shrub/sapling-sized invasive trees should be included in this activity as well. Buckthorn ranges in size from seedlings to trees that are over 3-4" in diameter. As with the tree removal, invasive shrubs and saplings should be removed during dormant conditions. In the wetlands, invasive shrub removal should take place when the ground is frozen as well. All invasive shrubs and saplings should be cut as close to the ground as possible and cut stumps promptly treated with herbicide. Cut material can be chipped and hauled off for composting. Forestry mowing to shred cut material is an alternative to chipping and hauling for areas accessible by a skidsteer. Follow-up foliar treatments should be anticipated for any stump re-sprouts and seedlings. If there is desirable native broadleaf ground cover in areas with re-sprouts and seedlings, foliar treatment should occur after the native broadleaf plants have senesced in the fall.Areas with sparse or no desirable broadleaf plants can be foliar treated during the growing season. A minimum of three to five years of follow-up foliar treatments should be anticipated to significantly reduce invasive shrub cover and control recruitment from the soil seedbank. Prior to invasive shrub control, a seeding/planting plan should be in place for revegetation. A seed mix of native grasses and sedges is typically sown in areas where invasive shrubs will require follow-up foliar treatments with a broadleaf-selective herbicide. After the invasive shrub cover has significantly Project Number: 193806465 20 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond diminished, a seed mix with native grasses, sedges, and broadleaf flowers can be sown to add diversity, functionality, and resilience. 4.1.3 HERBACEOUS WEED CONTROL Herbaceous weed spot treatments are recommended for reducing cover by invasive plants and problematic weeds such as Canada thistle, leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, creeping Charlie, garlic mustard, burdock, motherwort, nonnative cattail, reed canary grass, and smooth brome. Treatment for some of these species may be combined with broadcast spraying as part of site preparation for native seeding/planting. As with invasive shrub control, multiple treatments should be anticipated. For the herbaceous weeds, successful control may require multiple treatments within one growing season and for at least 2-3 growing seasons. The specific control methods used, including herbicide selection and timing, will be species-dependent. Treatments should involve the most selective herbicides applied at the lowest effective rates for control based on herbicide label recommendations. Herbicide applications to flowering target species should be avoided when pollinators are highly active. Purple loosestrife is extremely abundant through the wetland complex, so biocontrol may be the best option for larger-scale control combined with spot herbicide applications to scattered individuals around the pond shorelines. Biocontrol will not eliminate purple loosestrife and effectiveness varies from year to year, but it can reduce total purple loosestrife cover for enabling better expression of native herbaceous plants. 4.1.4 NATIVE SEEDING Native seeding is recommended to enhance ground layer vegetation cover throughout the project area. No site preparation, other than weed spot treatments, may be needed in areas with some existing native vegetation. Spring seeding native woodland grasses and sedges is effective for woodland areas. The seeds will germinate during the growing season. For broadleaf seed mixes, fall seeding is recommended to enhance germination for many native broadleaf wildflowers. Other than monitoring establishment, no other grow-in maintenance activities are needed are than weed spot treatments while the herbaceous plants establish in woodland and lowland hardwood areas. Lawn areas planned for conversion to native plantings will require site preparation prior to seeding. Site preparation may involve a combination of broadcast spraying with a non-selective herbicide such as glyphosate to kill the existing sod, and light soil scarification. Mowing will be required during the first growing season after seeding to aid establishment of the native seedlings. Establishment monitoring will determine whether mowing is needed during the second growing season. At a minimum, spot weed mowing and spot herbaceous weed treatments should be anticipated for grow-in maintenance for native ground cover establishment during the second and third growing seasons. Project Number: 193806465 21 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond 4.1.5 NATIVE PLUG PLANTING Native plug planting can supplement seeding in select areas. Plugs are sometimes available for species that are not otherwise available as seed. Shoreline areas that need quicker vegetation cover should be considered for plugs. Watering should be planned as a contingency if sufficient rainfall is lacking during the first growing season. Plug planting should be done in late spring or in the fall. 4.2 Cost Estimates The following cost estimates are based on typical best management practices for conducting the activities described above, including site preparation (if needed), follow-up treatments, and grow-in maintenance. Cost estimates for activities that should be planned for at least 3 years of initial restoration include the costs for implementing 3 years of treatments. Additional costs related to potential erosion control materials and installation,tree inventory/marking, and native plug, shrub, or tree plantings are not included. Table 3 Vegetation Restoration Cost Estimates Activity Approximate Acres Subtotal Cost($)/Acre Cost($) Tree removal (lump sum); within woodland, lowland $13,500 4.8 $13,500 hardwoods cover types Invasive shrub control (3 years); woodland, lowland $7,500 10.3 $77,250 hardwoods, wet meadow/carr, hardwood swamp Herbaceous invasive spot treatments (3 years) $4,500 10.3 $46,350 Native seeding—woodland, lowland hardwoods, wet $2,800 10.3 $28,840 meadow/carr, hardwood swamp; includes seed and seeding 2 times Native seeding—lawn to natives, small stormwater $4,500 2.4 $10,800 pond buffer(3 years); includes site preparation, seed mix, seeding, and grow-in maintenance Total 12.7 $176,740 5 Vegetation Maintenance Annual maintenance of vegetation in the project area should be anticipated to include monitoring 2-3 times per year for weed control needs, tree pruning or removal needs, and monitoring for pond buffer functionality. Spot treatments should be planned for both woody invasive plants and herbaceous Project Number: 193806465 22 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond invasives. Spot treatments may involve a combination of spot herbicide applications and spot mowing with weed whips, brush saws, or walk-behind brush mowers. Long-term maintenance of native plantings in areas converted from turf may include a combination of spot weed treatments, dormant mowing, and periodic prescribed burns. Dormant mowing and prescribed fire will help invigorate growth and flowering. Prescribed fire can aid in controlling some weed species as well, depending on the timing. Dormant mowing in early spring will break down the previous year's growth. Depending upon the location of the plantings, mowers that are used to mow the rest of the park could be used for dormant mowing. Prescribed burns should be considered for implementation every 3-4 years. Trained personnel should plan and conduct the burns. 6 Potential Grant Funding Potential state grant funding sources for ecological restoration include the Outdoor Heritage Fund (OHF), as appropriated by the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, and the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF), as appropriated by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR). Both of those funding sources require that funds for ecological restoration and enhancement are used on public lands or waters or on private lands encumbered by a perpetual conservation easement. The Outdoor Heritage Fund is just one of four funds established by the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment ("Legacy Amendment")to the Minnesota Constitution that was passed by Minnesota voters in 2008. The Legacy Amendment distributes revenue from three-eighths of one percent of state sales tax to four funds: the OHF, Clean Water Fund, Parks and Trails Fund, and the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund. The MN DNR manages the Conservation Partners Legacy (CPL) Grant Program that awards funding from the OHF. The CPL grant program specifically funds"conservation projects that restore, enhance, or protect forests, wetlands, prairies, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife in Minnesota." (MN DNR 2024) Under public ownership, Silver View Park should be eligible for CPL grants to aid in ecological restoration and enhancement. Competitive matching grants range from $5,000 to$500,000 and government entities, as well as local, regional, state, and national nonprofit organizations, are eligible to receive grants. More information about the grant program is available at the following weblink: httos.//www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/habitat/col/index.html. An example CPL grant funding application schedule for Fiscal Year 2024 is provided below. Project Number: 193806465 23 Mounds View Silver View Park Pond CLEAN 1. R'AnE LEGACY S'? & DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program FY2024 Application and Funding Schedule Application system opens for all grant cycles on August 1,2023 Expedited Conservation Projects(ECP)' Traditional,Metro,and New Applicant I - September 11,2023: ECP Round 1 Closes,3:00 PM September 19,2023: Application system closes,3:00 PM October 20,2023: Announce funded ECP applications December 30,2023: Awards announced for Round 1 November 13,2023: ECP Round 2 Closes,3:00 PM January 3,2024: Round 2 application system opens(if funds remain) December 15,2023: Announce funded ECP applications February 20,2024: Application system closes,3:00 PM May 10,2024: Awards announced for Round 2 January 16,2024: ECP Round 3 Closes,3:00 PM February 16,2024: Announce funded ECP applications March 11,2024: ECP Round 4 Closes,3:00 PM April 19,2024: Announce funded ECP applications May 13,2024: ECP Round S Closes,3:00 PM June 21,2024: Announce funded ECP applications 'ECP funds are available on a first-come,first-serve basis for approved,eligrbie proiects.Up to 5 Rounds will be held. Conservathon Partners Legacy Giant Program Page 1 FY24 Applicat on and Funding Schedule Project Number: 193806465 24 8C Mounds View Silver View Park—BMP Planting Approach Examples Option A: BMPs Planted with Containers Option B: BMPs Seeded with native seed mix and Planted with Plugs '1 ;1011111111016 X 'u'....'r"+Y '" * 1 po tif iv • R F . S, § R 1 '"ta ` t bra $ • �.{ x>..iv- �f r ! _ • `' x431-, a .c.-t - f �. ' F *—Image does not show native plants within this basin. Our intent would be to propose native plant species suitable for this area, if this Option A planting approach is selected,to provide pollinator benefits and more funding and educational opportunities. **-Image of rain garden planted with#1 container stock plants and mulch shortly after installation. *** -These BMPs are several years old and have received consistent weed management since installation. Option A Option B Pros Pros The aesthetics of a "garden" or plan with plant Lower installation cost;some watering may be groupings is generally accepted by the needed during periods of drought and community establishment Quicker establishment period: Plants bloom Reduced maintenance: maintenance includes usually within the first year mowing 3x per year for lst 3 years, lx per year thereafter Funding and native plant educational Funding and native plant educational opportunity,generally IF using native plant opportunity species Cons Cons Higher installation cost, higher water demand Longer establishment period:Seed and plugs during periods of drought and establishment _ take time to fill in and bloom Higher maintenance: maintenance includes Education may be necessary to gain community hand weeding monthly during growing season support and respond to initial perceptions of (-8x)for 1st 2-3 years, less often thereafter "weediness" Limited variety of native plant species in larger plant stock sizes 8C Stantec Memo To: Don Peterson From: Dendy Lofton, PhD, CLM City of Mounds View Dan Edgerton, P.E. Ben Otto Minneapolis Project/File: 193806465 Date: January 26, 2024 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond, Mounds View, MN Introduction The June 2023 Mounds View Stormwater Pond Assessment report recommended a number of implementation activities for the City of Mounds View to maintain and restore its stormwater ponding system. One of the objectives in the implementation plan was the water quality improvement of Silver View Pond in 2024. Stantec conducted several field data collection activities in 2023 to support the water quality assessment. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to provide a summary of the field data collection, desktop analysis methods and results, and management recommendations to improve water quality in Silver View Pond. Water Quality Assessment In order to diagnose the existing water quality conditions in Silver View Pond, Stantec collected water samples for nutrient analysis, surveyed the aquatic vegetation community, and collected sediment cores to assess the rate of sediment phosphorus release. The phosphorus data was used to develop a lake response model for Silver View Pond that estimates the proportion of phosphorus entering the pond through runoff from the drainage area (external loading) and the proportion of phosphorus derived from sediment release (internal loading). FIELD DATA COLLECTION Water Samples Pond water samples were collected on 6/26/2023 and 9/6/2023 for analytical laboratory measurements of total phosphorus (TP), orthophosphate, total nitrogen,and chlorophyll-a, which is a proxy for algal biomass. Samples were collected from just below the water surface and delivered to RMB Laboratories for analysis. At the time of sample collection on September 6, 2023, vertical profiles (every 0.5 m) of dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, pH, and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)were measured with a hand-held multiparameter probe (YSI). Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 2 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN Aquatic Vegetation To assess the presence, abundance, and health of the lake's aquatic vegetation community, Stantec surveyed the aquatic plant communities in Silver View Pond on 6/27/2023 and 6/28/2023 (early season) and on 8/31/2023 (late season). Each lake was surveyed at distinct locations across a grid using the point- intercept methods described in Madsen (1999).1 During each point-intercept survey, all submerged, floating leaf, and emergent species were identified at each survey point. Surveys were conducted at two periods in the summer growing season to account for different life cycles of commonly found aquatic native and invasive species in Minnesota. At each survey location a double-sided, weighted 14-tine rake was thrown from the boat, allowed to sink, and pulled across the lake bottom to represent approximately 1 square meter of lake area. We refer to this process as a rake toss. For each rake toss, vegetation was removed from the rake and identified to the species level. Sediment Chemistry Sediment cores were collected on 9/6/2023 from three locations in Silver View Pond, as shown in Figure 1. Sediment cores were collected for two purposes. The first was for laboratory incubation to quantify sediment phosphorus release rates under oxic and anoxic conditions. Sediments were incubated at UW- Stout under temperature-and light-controlled conditions. The second analysis was for phosphorus fractionation to quantify the mobile and non-mobile pools of phosphorus. Each core was sectioned into two depth intervals (0-5 and 5-10 cm depth intervals)for phosphorus fractionation analysis (Table 1) and sediment characteristics(i.e., moisture content, bulk density, and percent organic matter). The purpose of this analysis was to quantify the pools of P that are subject to diffusion from the sediments and characterize the areal extent of potential internal P loads to determine the feasibility of an alum treatment to suppress internal P loads. 1 Madsen, J.D. 1999. Point intercept and line intercept methods for aquatic plant management.APCRT Technical Notes Collection. U.S.Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 3 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN ,• . 4 I' , I ' .. . \ , , t ,• ,,,,_ .-,•. 'ki 4 ' 1 a. • •iii,3 .i. .,... - , : i• i .. --- • „,„, • - / i i - •, , ,i• .ii • - 1 . i•i- i ii '..'''"'"'1.• . ' '''''':..,VN!.:`' - • '1,.,„,,,,.. • ,, , , 44.";"‘""i ' ; , "1."1,..- ' .-- • - — ' 1' .,.. ...,,, 4, l, ....--,....., , .. .., , . .. — .- .-. -'0011.4.7,4.........-lit - 1. :li .. - t1,11.,ii .11--e., ". 1 1. 4.,..-1.-; '''. 7 - •rf -...'', A ..... 0 Sever View Pond ... co.-it', c. • Sediment Sampling Location Cij)stantec c.unt. .......„ C.O.,11V 1 .• , ,... ... .. , 1 as...........ravimift-,...0.0.1.1,a%loess Am.Sew.. ilway....as Re*..4*AS%or. Sa rt,0 I.rst Wow..',,,*or.....mo w pl.....a.earir"..i"......3.4 a..4 ow+a...........s low.— .,,,.....I- Figure 1. Sediment coring locations in Silver View Pond , - Design with community in mind , - January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 4 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN Table 1 Operational grouping and recycling potential of phosphorus fraction. Operational P Fraction i Recycling Potential Grouping Iron-bound P Mobile P pool Loosely-bound P Biologically-labile and subject to mobilization through biogeochemical and geochemical reactions. Labile organic P Non-mobile P pool Aluminum-bound P Calcium bound P Biologically-refractory and subject to burial; not readily available for biological uptake. Refractory P Sediment grab samples were also collected in the western forebay for sediment analysis for disposal option considerations in the event that sediment dredging would be necessary. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The following sections provide discussion of our findings from analysis of the water chemistry, aquatic vegetation, and sediment chemistry data components of the water quality assessment in Silver View Pond. Water quality Table 2 shows the concentration range of water quality parameters collected this summer from Silver View Pond. Minnesota does not have water quality standards for stormwater ponds, so we compared the Silver View Pond data to the eutrophication standards for shallow lakes in the same ecoregion (North Central Hardwood Forest)to gauge water quality under existing conditions. Chlorophyll-a is a proxy for algal biomass and is an indicator of how productive the system is in response to elevated nutrient concentrations. Both chlorophyll-a and TP exceed the limit for shallow lakes, indicating very high productivity in Silver View Pond. Total nitrogen (TN) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) are also elevated. Nitrite/nitrate concentrations were below the reporting limit. TKN represents ammonia and organic nitrogen, so these nitrogen data indicate that a large portion of the nitrogen pool is in an organic form. Nutrient delivery to Silver View Pond will need to be reduced in order to improve water quality and reduce frequency and duration of algal blooms. Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 5 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN Table 2 Ran e of concentrations for water qualit parameters Parameter Concentration Range Eutrophication Standards for Shallow Lakes (n=2) 1 m North Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion Chl-a(pg/L) 20-24 20 TP(pg/L) 69—112 60 Ortho-P(pg/L) 10 N/A TN(mg/L) 1.18—1.26 N/A TKN (mg/L) 1.18— 1.26 N/A Nitrite/nitrate(mg/L) <0.03 N/A Vertical profiles of physicochemical parameters are shown in Table 3. In a small shallow pond like Silver View Pond, we expect well-mixed conditions such that temperature and pH are consistent throughout the water column. Dissolved oxygen (DO)tends to decrease from the surface towards the sediments due to the demand for oxygen during microbially-driven organic matter decomposition and other oxygen-consuming geochemical processes. In early September when the profile data was collected, the pond had extensive coverage of floating aquatic plants such as duckweed and watermeal (discussed in more detail below), which can cut off the oxygen supply from the atmosphere across the air-water interface. Combined with the oxygen demand, DO in Silver View Pond was extremely low. Dissolved oxygen concentrations below 2 mg/L are considered hypoxic and would be detrimental to aquatic organisms that are not tolerant of low DO conditions. Table 3. Ph sicochemical parameters collected at 0 5 m increments in the water column. Depth Temperature DO (m) ( (°C) (mg/L) pH 0 23.88 2.86 7.56 0.5 23.92 2.35 7.55 1 23.81 1.52 7.5 1.5 23.73 0.2 7.31. Aquatic Vegetation Community Silver View Pond is shallow with a mean depth of approximately 6.5 ft. Consequently, the pond is shallow enough to support aquatic vegetation growth across its entire surface area, and indeed the pond experiences significant coverage by aquatic vegetation in the summer growing season. Figure 2 shows the points surveyed in Silver View Pond and conveys the number of individual taxa found at each location. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) metrics from the two surveys are shown in Table 4 and Table 5. The diversity of aquatic plant species in Silver View Pond is relatively high for a small, shallow urban stormwater pond. Shallow ponds and lakes tend to be either macrophyte-dominated or algae-dominated2. Systems may alternate from one state to another and experience unstable periods that reflect high densities of algae 2 Scheffer, Marten. Ecology of Shallow Lakes. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004. Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 6 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN and macrophytes under nutrient-rich conditions. From an ecological perspective, a high density of plant growth provides more habitat value than algae-dominated systems. Further, removal of plants from a system like Silver View Pond would create conditions that permit excessive growth of algae because of expanded light penetration through the water column in the absence of plants. Number of Taxa N x 0 Silverview Pond CO • -3 Number of Taxa • 4-5 • 6-7 6/27 and 6/28, 2023 • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . • • • 8/31, 2023 • • • • • • . x • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • Figure 2 Number of taxa observed at each sampling location in June and August 2023. Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 7 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN There are no widely established metrics for the quality of the vegetation community in stormwater ponds, so we compared the Silver View Pond macrophyte data to established vegetation metric thresholds for shallow lakes to understand the general quality and diversity of the existing in-pond plant community(Table 4). Species richness is an ecological measure of the number of different species found in a system.Another common metric for aquatic plants is the floristics quality index (FQI). The metrics calculated for Silver View Pond exceed the species richness and FQI thresholds for shallow lakes', which points to a diverse community of aquatic plants in Silver Pond. Diversity of plant species is particularly good from an ecological perspective as this provides different habitat and food resources for a wider range of species that depend on those resources. Table 4. Silver View Pond SAV metrics from early and late season surveys 2023. LAKEWIDE METRICS June 27th &28th,2023 August 31st, 2023 Early Season Late Season Total Points Sampled 67 66 Total Littoral Points Sampled 66 66 % Littoral with Veg 98.5 97 Max depth of plant growth(ft) 8 12 Shallow Lake Species Richness 11 Threshold Species Richness 13 13 Shallow Lake Floristic Quality 17.8 Index(FQI) Threshold FQI 19.6 19.2 Simpson's Diversity Index 0.86 0.87 The frequency of occurrence is a measure of the number of a times a particular species appeared in a sampling point on the grid. The taxa observed at each point and the relative frequency of occurrence for each taxa are shown in Table 5. In general, no emergent taxa were observed. American white lily, stonewart, and coontail were the dominant submersed taxa found. American white lily provides food resources and habitat for waterfowl and is typically not removed from aquatic systems in Minnesota4. Removal of the lily would likely allow for denser growth and expansion of native species like stonewart and coontail, which can grow to nuisance conditions and have high frequency of occurrence in Silver View Pond currently. 3 Radomski, P., and D. Perleberg. 2012. "Application of a versatile aquatic macrophyte integrity index for Minnesota lakes."Ecological Indicators 20: 252-268. 4 https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/aquatic_plants/floatingleaf_plants/white_water_lily.htnn I Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 8 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN Table 5. Aquatic plant taxa and littoral frequency of occurrence in Silver View Pond. June 26th/ Taxa Common Name 27th, 2023 August 31st,2023 Early ! Late Season Season • SUBMERSED TAXA Nymphaea odorata American white waterlily 49 55 Nuphar variegata Bullhead pond-lily 1 -- Chara sp. Stonewart 46 38 Elodea canadensis Canadian waterweed 9 12 Ceratophyllum demersum Coontail 45 44 Potamogeton zosteriformis Eel-grass pondweed 6 3 Potamogeton foliosis Leafy pondweed -- 2 Potamogeton pusillus Small pondweed 37 3 Stuckenia pectinata Sago pondweed 3 3 FLOATING TAXA Lemna trisulca Ivy-leaved duckweed 13 23 Lemna minor Small duckweed 96 58 Wolffia sp. Watermeal 81 58 • Spirodela polyrhiza Large duckweed 97 59 Utricularia vulgaris Common bladderwort 1 6 EMERGENT TAXA Typha sp. Cattail -- -- Sagittaria sp. Arrowhead -- -- Schoenoplectus acutus Hardstem bulrush -- -- Note that at some points in the late season survey, watermeal was at 100% coverage on the surface of the water. However, watermeal. coverage on the rake tow was lower at these points, so the rake tow values were incorporated into the statistical analyses per the protocol. Sediment Phosphorus Chemistry Phosphorus release rates under oxic and anoxic conditions are shown in Figure 3. Rates over 2 mg/m2-d are considered high and may indicate the need to implement actions to reduce release of phosphorus from pond sediments. Anoxic release rates were higher than oxic release rates in Silver View Pond, which is typical. Anoxia-driven phosphorus release is due to reduction of iron that is bound to phosphorus,which causes the bonds to break and allows dissolved phosphorus to diffuse from the sediments. Oxic release is typically driven by aerobic decomposition of organic matter where dissolved phosphorus is released in the process. Station 3 had nearly equal rates of anoxic and oxic release which is a function of the high Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 9 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN proportion of organic matter in the sediments(28-55%). There was quite a bit of variability in rates between cores at each station. For each rate shown in Figure 3, two sediment cores were collected to achieve an average rate with a measure of variability (± 1 standard deviation of the mean). No phosphorus accumulated in one of the sediment cores for station 1, so that measure represents one single core instead of an average rate.All replicates for Stations 2 and 3 showed high variability in rates as well, which is common in lake and pond sediments. Silver View Pond ■Anoxic Conditions ■Oxic Conditions 7 m 6 0 5 U, d mN 4 N o ;_ 3 a 2 a 0 1 2 3 Sampling Station Figure 3 Phosphorus release rates under oxic and anoxic conditions in Silver View Pond Sediments were also analyzed for phosphorus fractionation to quantify the mobile and non-mobile pools of phosphorus(Figure 4). This data provides us with an understanding of the potential for continued flux of phosphorus from the sediments. The pool of phosphorus that is considered most likely to diffuse from the sediments based on its reactivity and capacity to mobilize is redox-sensitive phosphorus (redox-P). This includes the iron-bound phosphorus fraction and the pool that is considered loosely bound (meaning it has simple bonds that can be easily broken). The horizontal lines in Figure 4 represent the 25th, 50th (median), and 75th percentiles for redox-P in our Minnesota lake sediment chemistry database. Redox-P concentrations in Silver View Pond sediments were in the lower range of concentrations observed in our database of lake sediments. Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 10 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN Silver View Pond Upper 5 cm —25th Percentile --Median —75th Percentile 0.50 0.45 0.40 a) 0.35 aa) E 0.30 a- 0.25 x -0 0.20 m IX 0.15 0.10 0.05 11-111 . 0.00 1 2 3 Sampling Station Figure 4. Concentrations of redox-sensitive phosphorus in the upper 0-5 cm of sediments collected from Silver View Pond. Phosphorus Budget A major objective of the water quality diagnostic assessment includes development of a phosphorus mass balance model for Silver View Pond that estimates the proportion of phosphorus loads from the watershed drainage area and from internal sediment release. Determination of the relative magnitude of external versus internal phosphorus loading serves to inform management strategies to reduce phosphorus concentrations in Silver View Pond. To accomplish this objective, Stantec developed a P8 model (described in more detail below)to simulate phosphorus loads to Silver View Pond from the surrounding drainage area. The loads from P8 were input into a lake response mass balance models to determine the relative proportion of external versus internal phosphorus loading. Internal load estimates were based on the direct measurements of phosphorus release rates under oxic and anoxic conditions (in units of mg/m2-d). Extrapolation up to whole-lake loads requires an estimate of the areal extent of anoxic and oxic conditions, which can be estimated for polymictic small shallow lakes based on an anoxic factor(AF)model developed by Gertrud Nurnberg5. 5 Nurnberg, Gertrud. 2009. Accessing internal phosphorus load—problems to be solved. Lake and Reservoir Management 25(4):419-432. Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 11 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN AFpred = —36.2 + 50.2 Iog(TPsumrner) + 0.762 z/Aa5 Where: • TP= summer average • a/Ao°5 is a morphometric factor(z= mean depth in meters; Ao is surface area in km2) Once the estimated number of days of anoxic and oxic conditions are estimated, these factors are multiplied by the direct measurements of sediment release rates to obtain an approximate lake-wide TP load. For this mass balance exercise, we assumed that inputs from the atmosphere are negligible, as the goal was to determine the relative proportion of internal and external loads, which are presented in Table 6 and Figure 5. The results of the mass balance exercise indicate that the majority of the phosphorus load is derived from the surrounding watershed (66%of the total load), followed by internal loading (34%). The areal load from oxic release (26%)was greater than the areal load from anoxic release (8%). Table 6. Phosphorus Modeling Results Source Contribution Load(lbs/yr) %of Total Load External TP Load 176.8 66% Internal TP Load-Anoxic 21 34% Internal TP Load-Oxic 70 Total 267.8 100% Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 12 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN Silver View Pond Internal TP Load-Oxic j 26% 4 "k /IOW 4 {A External TP Load 66% Internal TP - Load-Anoxic 8% Figure 5. Proportion of phosphorus loads from external and internal sources. Recommendations for Water Quality Improvement There is not one single management activity that will improve water quality in Silver View Pond, as there are several factors contributing to poor water quality. The following sections contain recommendations on management activities that will function to reduce nutrient delivery and/or sediment release in Silver View Pond to improve water quality conditions. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT The aquatic vegetation community in Silver View Pond is fairly diverse and consists of native species. While the density of plants may be a visual nuisance to some residents, the diversity and composition of species present provide habitat, food resources for wildlife, and nutrient uptake.Anecdotally, area residents have reported dense algae growth in Silver View Pond. The data collected this summer along with visual observations by Stantec staff on multiple occasions indicate that floating-leaved plants like watermeal often exhibited full surface coverage of the pond, resembling an algae bloom. Chlorophyll-a concentrations in Silver View Pond are elevated which indicates algae growth in addition to abundant growth of macrophytes. As mentioned above, removal of aquatic plants in small, shallow ponds can exacerbate growth of algae due to the increased light availability through the water column. Dense algae growth provides far less ecological value to wildlife and aquatic organisms than a macrophyte-dominated system. Consequently,we do not recommend any interventions to manage the submerged aquatic vegetation in Silver View Pond. Nutrient reduction and mechanical removal are the only options for reducing floating-leaved vegetation. Given the diverse and quality of existing native species in the submerged plant community, herbicide treatment to floating-leaved vegetation would not be advised due to the deleterious effects on the native community in this system. There may be some benefits to skimming the duckweed and/or watermeal from Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 13 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN the surface in late summer to open the surface of the water to the atmosphere as summertime DO drops considerably when the surface is covered by floating-leaved vegetation. SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT Our field assessments indicated accumulation of sediment around some of the outlet structures. We recommend removal of sediment plumes at these structures to original pond depths, as determined in the bathymetric survey performed as part of the June 2023 Mounds View Stormwater Pond Assessment. NUTRIENT REDUCTION Internal load reduction There are primarily four different strategies for alum applications to lakes, which can be applied individually or in some combination to achieve desired management goals. The strategies are described below. • Water column stripping: This strategy targets the phosphorus in the water column but does not account for the mass of phosphorus in the sediments. It is ineffective for capturing additional external loads following an initial alum application, as the material will settle to the sediments within 24-48 hours. • Sediment phosphorus inactivation: This strategy targets the mass of phosphorus in the sediments that is subject to mobilization and diffusion from the sediments to the water column. Upon application, some alum serves to"strip the water column"of phosphorus as well. Consequently, the water column needs for phosphorus binding are included in the dosing calculations. • Phosphorus interception: This strategy involves addition of alum (or an alum-based coagulant)to a tributary inflow to reduce the external phosphorus load before entering the lake. • Maintenance treatments: Maintenance dosing may target the water column or the sediments depending on the goal. Maintenance treatments are particularly useful when a sediment inactivation treatment has been applied, but continued external loading sustains high water column phosphorus levels and accumulation of phosphorus in the sediments overlying the floc layer. Maintenance doses function to bind with phosphorus that has entered the lake since the previous application. We recommend a pilot alum application that employs a water column stripping approach where alum is applied to the entire pond in the spring following ice-out but prior to growth of dense abundant vegetation. This would serve to bind phosphorus that is in the water column at the time of application, which will settle to the sediments in the form of an aluminum phosphate floc that is unavailable for algal uptake. Once settled to the sediments, the alum floc would capture some phosphorus in the sediments until the binding site of the alum has been occupied. Water samples for phosphorus and chlorophyll-a analysis would be collected biweekly from Silver View Pond to evaluate success of the pilot application. Depending on the pond's response to the treatment (as evidenced by phosphorus and chlorophyll-a), the strategy may need to be adaptively managed the following year. For example, an application prior to fall ice-on may provide Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 14 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN additional benefits in addition to the spring application. If the application strategy is deemed successful, annual or semi-annual applications may be needed until nutrient loading has been significantly reduced from the watershed. Based on the sediment phosphorus chemistry data, we have calculated an alum dose that is appropriate for a water column stripping dose in Silver View Pond, along with estimated material cost per application. Note that these unit prices do not include contractor mobilization and demobilization. Additionally, alum unit prices are subject to market fluctuations, so$3.25/gallon of alum is based on our experience with alum treatment projects of small and large scales in Minnesota. Stantec can support the City with development of technical specifications and bid documents, and contractor selection when ready to move forward with the pilot application. Table 7. Alum Dose and Cost Estimates Areal Application otal volume ! Assumed Unit Estimated Aluminum k Area Dose of Alum Cost of Alum* aterial Cost 11 acres 22 g AI/m2 4,370 gallons $3.25/gallon $14,200 * Subject to market fluctuations External load reduction P8 modeling was used to estimate TP loading to Silver View Pond. Based on modeling results, BMPs were then designed to treat runoff from the subwatersheds with the highest loading rates. The modeling results and BMP design are presented below. Subwatershed Modeling Figure 6 shows the subwatersheds defined along with the estimated annual TP loadings, based on P8 modeling. As indicated on Figure 6, primary TP loadings to Silver View Pond are occurring at: • The forebay on the western edge • From Lake Court Drive along the north side of the pond • From the H2 Flats apartments on the southeast side of the pond • From County Road H2 on the southwest edge of the pond Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 15 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN n a t`" V ..k s� 44, 4,-,"" ,. : r .,-e. ., ..; - . w,y art " 1 ,.. . ,,.rorr .. . . , y. �4 n u � Eell a ° o °,� J it *� � a �� ,3 a �,.�'n'�.: �'" b O � "" l�En a,.... ~d — ;" +Imo. C.,�so-r waw is 1 ,a vv Figure 6. TP Loading by Subwatershed BMP Design .0" Based on the subwatershed modeling, we developed BMPs to reduce TP loading to Silver View Pond. The proposed BMPs are summarized below. Forebay improvements: Improvements to the existing forebay include regrading to provide additional wet pond storage along the south portion of the forebay with an iron-enhanced filtration bench on the north side, as shown in Figure 7. The overflow berm is proposed to be regraded and an outlet control structure installed, as shown in Figure 8. Runoff will enter the forebay with sediment settlement in the wet ponding portion. The outlet control structure will be a 48" diameter structure with an inlet grate and a 12" outlet pipe Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 16 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN to a downstream depressional area, which then discharges through a large corrugated metal pipe to Silver View Pond. The secondary outlet will be filtration through the bench to a draintile which then discharges to the outlet control structure. A 10-foot wide emergency overflow notch will be graded into the existing overflow berm. Turf reinforcement matting will be added to the downslope down to the existing depressional area. 2 NWL 897.0 EL8960` /EL 896.0 _-''j ', `� EL 895.0 • .•.,.;:.•. . . .: EL 8946 \\\.c./..))..,..3 s 6"HDPE CORRUGATED \ /t J EL.892.0 PERFORATED DRAINTILE WITHOUT SOCK CD 0 D% GRADE INE FILTER MEDIA Figure 7. Forebay Improvements Cross Section. j • .,„____, .‘ ..,01) Figure 8. Forebay Improvements Plan. Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 17 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN Total cost of the improvement is estimated at$121,000. Table 8 summarizes the BMP pollutant reduction and cost-effectiveness. Table 8. Forebay Improvements Treatment Level and Cost-Effectiveness. BMP TSS TSS TSS TP TP TP Cost- Inflow, Outflow, Reduction, Inflow, Outflow, Reduction, Effectiveness, lb/yr lb/yr lb/yr lb/yr lb/yr lb/yr $/lb TP/yr Forebay 6,051.90 6,299.90 752.0 47.90 44.10 5.80 $20,900 Improvements Sump Structures on Lake Court Drive: Improvements in the subwatershed north of the pond are limited due to grade and available space. For this reason, the proposed improvements are replacing the downstream catch basins in the street with sump structures and installing SAFL Baffles and Snout skimmers or equal. SHASM modeling was used to find a representative removal rate for a 4-foot diameter and 4-foot depth sump with a SAFL baffle. The existing loadings of the P8 modeling were used and the SHSAM removal rates applied to the existing loadings to determine the TSS reduction per year. Total cost of the improvement is estimated at$46,000.Table 9 summarizes the BMP pollutant reduction and cost-effectiveness. These structures are not designed to remove TP, so cost-effectiveness is based on TSS removal. Table 9. Sump Structures Treatment Level and Cost-Effectiveness. BMP TSS Inflow, TSS Outflow, TSS Cost- lb/yr lb/yr Reduction, Effectiveness,$/lb lb/yr TSS/yr Sump Structure 12,656.00 12,352.30 303.74 $150 Improvements Bioretention Features Alone Apartment Parking Lot: Two linear bioretention features are proposed north of the H2 Flats apartments parking lots, as shown in Figure 9. Each will capture runoff from the apartment site and provide filtration/infiltration prior to discharge into the pond. Due to the flat terrain and high groundwater, the features are relatively shallow(1'), with flat draintile lines discharging directly at the pond normal water level. Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 18 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN Northwest Linear BMP Ka) --- ---.. •________ -----. r-------- --------...::::::;----- „,-. .-- '''-'''' _Y' r:: . _ _ -- ___________---- ---••_ . ---------, ------- --- --------_.• .. = ...• ---- -...z ,.. ----- -------------------_....: ....;_ -------- 4e4f,p,i JO 7--17 - / ,- :',/\1 A• •- ';.:.1 ',3'' ------------ p • 1 t --_ .------- - • - -,i/>. i • ; . .- 707 "\s' ri ,./.. . .. , . _ --_-_,--, ----- -7'; '---- ------—\---- Northeast Linear BMP --- .. -- - ._ ,•----- . _ -- —„ „-- ____- .„---- ...--- ..-- ,,,,,-- ,--- _,-- ....--- ____--- . , ..--- --- . --- Figure 9. Linear Bioretention Features Along Apartment Parking Lot. Design with community in mind January26,2024 Don Peterson Page 19 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN Total cost of the bioretention features is estimated at$165,000. Table 10 summarizes the BMP pollutant reduction and cost-effectiveness. Table 10. Linear Bioretention Features Treatment Level and Cost-Effectiveness. BMP TSS TSS TSS TP Inflow, TP TP Cost- Inflow, Outflow, Reduction, lb/yr Outflow, Reduction, Effectiveness, lb/yr lb/yr lb/yr lb/yr lb/yr $/Ib TP/yr Linear 7,745.20 1,308.40 6,436.80 25.20 12.30 12.90 $12,600 Bioretention Features Bioretention Features on County Road H2 (CR H2): Two bioretention features are proposed in existing depressional areas north of CR H2, as shown in Figure 10. Each will capture runoff from CR H2 and provide filtration/infiltration prior to discharge into the pond. The features will make use of existing depressions and draintile lines from the 2002 CR H2 project. It appears that the existing drainage system has been largely filled with sediment and buried over time. The existing piping will be cleaned out and reused if possible; otherwise, they will be replaced. Standpipes with inlet grates will be moved and raised as needed to create appropriate wet ponding depth. The depression bottoms will be replaced with engineered sand/compost subgrades, and draintiles will be provided. 1 s f Figure 10. CR H2 Bioretention Features. Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 20 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN Total cost of the bioretention features is estimated at$68,000. Table 11 summarizes the BMP pollutant reduction and cost-effectiveness. Table 11. CR H2 Bioretention Features Treatment Level and Cost-Effectiveness. BMP TSS TSS TSS TP Inflow, TP TP Cost- Inflow, Outflow, Reduction, lb/yr Outflow, Reduction, Effectiveness, lb/yr lb/yr lb/yr lb/yr lb/yr $/lb TP/yr Linear 3,144.40 1,294.80 1,849.60 10.30 7.40 2.90 $23,500 Bioretention Features Summary and Recommendations A water quality assessment of Silver View Pond was performed to develop recommendations for improvements in and around the pond to improve its water quality. The assessment included: • Field data collection of bathymetry, water quality, sediment chemistry, and aquatic vegetation • Water quality modeling of the pond watershed • Lake modeling of in-pond water quality • Assessment of pond vegetation • Assessment of sediment chemistry with a focus on phosphorus release • Development of recommendations for water quality improvements, including vegetation management, sediment management, internal nutrient load reduction, and external nutrient load reduction Recommended waterualit improvements are as follows: q P Y • Vegetation management: No interventions to manage the submerged aquatic vegetation are recommended, as the existing vegetation is native and provides ecological value to wildlife. Removal of submerged aquatic vegetation would likely result in a conversion to an algae- dominated system. Periodic skimming of duckweed and/or watermeal from the pond surface in late summer could aid in improving dissolved oxygen levels in the pond. • Sediment management: Sediment deltas are recommended to be removed at selected outlets to the pond. These would restore original pond depths. • Internal load reduction: A pilot alum application project using a water column stripping approach is recommended in the spring following ice-out but prior to growth of dense abundant vegetation. Follow-up monitoring of phosphorus and chlorophyll-a is recommended to determine if/when future alum dosing would be required. Design with community in mind January 26,2024 Don Peterson Page 21 of 21 Reference: Water Quality Assessment of Silver View Pond,Mounds View,MN • External load reduction: A number of watershed improvements are recommended to reduce phosphorus loading to the pond, including improvements to the forebay on the western edge of the pond, installation of sump structures and SAFL Baffles in existing catch basin on Lake Court Drive, and installation of bioretention features along the H2 Flats Apartments parking lots and County Road H2. `'" Design with community in mind Item: 8D MOUNDS VIEW PUBLIC WORKS • PARKS&RE('RE_aTION MEMORANDUM To: Park & Recreation & Forestry Commission From: Don Peterson — Director of Public Works/Parks and Recreation Date: February 22, 2024 RE: Hillview Park Playground Discussion/ Background Hillview Park Playground is scheduled for replacement in the 2024 Capital Improvement Budget. The Commission toured Hillview Park at the annual Parks tour on May 25, 2023. Staff attended a seminar on inclusive playgrounds by Minnesota Wisconsin Playgrounds and provided the Commission with informational materials. The Commission also toured "Maddie's Place" in Woodbury in order to see an inclusive playground. At previous meetings, the Commission had discussed installing an inclusive playground at Hillview Parks or refurbishing the playground. Staff reached out to Minnesota Wisconsin Playgrounds, now MWP Recreation, in order to obtain a cost proposal for refurbishing the playground at Hillview Park. MWP Recreation also provided a cost for a new inclusive play structure, that was featured at the National Parks and Recreation Annual conference. MWP Recreation provided draft plan sets that show the feature at both City Hall and Hillview Parks. The following is a cost break down for refurbishing the playground at Hillview Park and the purchase and installation of the structure: Refurbish the playground at Hillview Park $ 50,981.39 Hillview National Demonstration (includes installation) $259,790.40 City Hall National Demonstration (does not include concrete work) $238,050.40 Staff is requesting the Commission review the material and provide input/direction to Staff. Respectfully submitted, Don Peterson, Director of Public Works/Parks and Recreation (GameTime) CR24000 %10 Li --.7-1101 dr-- 1 I . , N.--- irl CREATIVE Cute I/ Dallas Dazzler Product Line: PowerScape .— 01.11.ansta Model # CR24000 .7:4 0 PowerScape playground systems are constructed from heavy- duty materials, and are backed by the industry's leading warranty. PowerScape systems are designed to provide the highest capacity of any playground with an industry-leading 49" deck. Specifications Accessibility Length 46' Accessible 13 Width 50' Elevated 13 Age Range 5 to 12 Years Ground Level 6 Fall Height 12' Types 4 Number of Children Designing award-winning playgrounds since 1929 Complies with ASTM standards before it leaves the factory. Certified Installer Network-GameTime trained for GameTime playgrounds. t S £, £: s 1 I Design Your Aventus Tower . I With Aventus Tower,we've taken the guesswork out of designing a playground tower.Just choose a few options to — (1 it i personalize your design. 1 Choose 10'or 12'height 4 �t1Ci( III 2 Choose an Everybody Plays Arise Climber I,l limbers and other activities 'sertr ..._... 'I�,, ,II :'1 I+at 1 L------' Ip 3 Add slides,c or, �,l „1-'"am ; 4 Add play pockets for sensory playMI �(�rlr �� II��) !� 5 Add optional Talk Tube panels (•"I ii I' I Bring play to more people in your community with this tr 1, ! ', accessible playground tower. ` 1 _'' u �I�I�I i ©.11', 1.1. L I s SureGrip R �,t Y ill,I'%i�I 1' ,, II.10" t ,I III ThroughoutAventusToweryou'llfind (IIII I'�,IIIIIl1I; t u'' 1I�I SureGrip climbers that make the play a'a' �" (I 1 l!Il ltr l ,1 a— r I .' �/ I r space more accessible for everyone r, ,.� SureGrip's tactile surface and built In t'�11 I I%r%q�j���ll�l�l�i� I' '�' � i I j hand grips help people climb,crawl, 1 l or scoot from one area of the tower to 1- 1 Ip �� ���1���I'1' a '' ii 1 the next. -11 .; I�I 11 111 ` *�. 1 1 1 li 11 .i, Aventus Tower Components ,, , 111114 +,k., 4 o tit ii I•! ' i�ll� :1,41111111: ' ;IIIIu . %u. ,r 111 Ulla , 1 The Lookout 2 EveryBody Plays Arise Climber 3 Inclusive Play Pocket 4 Talk Tuba Panel 5 Transfer Platform 6 EveryBody Plays Slide Exit Transfer The centerpiece of Aventus,The Lookout is a An accessible SureGrip climber that rhls versatile addition can he used for a Make any upright on the tower a Designed in partnership with leading exit transfer is a great slide large,roomy space with a terrific views.It's fully takes users from one level to the sensory relief area or gathering spot or, communication center,Add Talk Tube inqusion advocates,this unique Transfer Our custoadd on fom slide eus Tower.When children enclosed,but has great sight lines so it's easy next,Available with optional cover fur add tit Sensor%(p232)for interactive play. panels at the bottom,middle,and top platform incorporates hand holds at the mach the end orthe slide,they can move to see in or out. additional shade for extra funl bottom,middle,and top for extra support. to the side and transfer easily to their I mobility device. 11111.11111 [n NFlNNING.Ir Installation mei t 'M UffrK:v such Ia, i,rMIt eTrh l it I:ar ell n a l rt lit,me are b t re change. 204 SVSTEO1COmPOOEOTSITOWERS pr an,oarkode,nnr,ayrvair ,+e,isiuosfrnnreh. vs,tNamelraa.,mwthe mosupa.d%t n nwnm TOWERS ISYSTEM C01lIPOfEOTS205 Ito . ...i. : '1,if. )• ;,;;, „' ,_-_ - skii.,..;,..ow; -- - - : I:. 17' .'1..941:..' ''1111.'' '.'1:::411:*' 'ft.r...'S 11*.' II' 171 1" b...11" il‘ * : 'AIL- — ' N st- . I s. • t If /...""4:411.'-•:”-.'' .4.-...410."*.. - *4. ., * .. ' Y .., 4., lq-A- • - -..,_,,..'..-,,....... --.7-----------1-4.4.--- .rz: ."--2......14INK.a.,,„ it.. tft",„ ' -w • ‘t I / 4 t — ' . — , 1 . r h• . ;,„,11, ,,:.',sf '''‘i--' "alt.,,-,7t-.:46"*.• -- ' , ,,,___. --,- ' * ,t. 1 %,-;,,.... ::.-...z.1:,..7=17 ..„1. ' • t''‘fl' -\-.'"I•otok '.4,- l'` ‘t• " : =.1,'' • ''''''. •..z," :-.. r''.'-: 1 % ,,,42\:" -• vt _ .,./ ik t , i .- -•— ' *r ; : .... 4, Z 4 • i , * ' , ,*• t . •. ,.., s-,...:.,_-_-.2 i 44' , i f _ , ••• 1 itt,, ... . _ 1 .....• _i— ll, .• :• ' ' • ; I " 4101111E: \`‘ ' , 1 k . . s , ,. - ....---.........- • ,. .. ,,00 ' 1 i . r . 4 it. . I • '''t 4 •ii)' V . . .11,1:VAPP'''ir ‘).11t1 I — 4. $ , • di tv , ,,, i I .1, e la ' . T !‘ "1.1111111110.00•1110001111111111.0011.111' 1 . .4. . • . ; . . .. . • ' ... ti . 0 I) , , , .1 a, , ti . ...... . . ,, , , fr : -- \ ( . 4 . I, r i ,- . 47 .. , 4 0. 1 , / 1 ‘ 1 , ‘ ,[1./ \ _ I. ,.. ! t 11 i \ . , • d' . ' . 1 ' ji. . . , .. . I • • , - ,..... .. ,. j ,t, f,fit A ,',4 ii d l 1