Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout040-1155-95-000 (2) ST. C ROIX Community Development 1101 Carmichael Road Hudson Wl 54016 C0-1JSNTy Telephone: /15-386-4680 Fax: 715-386-4686 www.scc:wi.gov 10/9/20'18 Dale Kaufman 244 Cove Rd Hudson, WI 54016 Rt: Conditional Approval: File# LUP-2018-054 Project I ocalion: 24.M.MO11 1, town of Troy Project Address: 244 Cove Rd. Dale, Community Development staff havo reviewed your after-the fact I and Use Permit application to remediate the violation of tree removal within the Riverway Zoning District The request has been conditionally approved based upon the following findings. Please read the conditions carefully, as they must be followed for the permit to be valid. 1. The property is within the Lower St. Croix Riverwary and the tree cutting took place along the slope preservation gone, which is a violation to Ch. 1736 11.8.0). 2. As per owner, Approximately 8 bees were cut and removed from the site. Therefor, the DBH of the trees could not he accurately dete,mined. F stirnation of the DBH, from the hale. of the remaining trunks found, is roughly 12-18 inches, Based on the I we Replacement Schedule Ch. 1/36 11.8.1' al rninunurm. 32 native trees of 2" diareter arc required. 3. As per site plan and the I TF Ventures, Inc. Project estimate, 34 native trees of 1 rh" diameter available and are to be planted within the region where trees wore removed. 4. 1 he trees arc to be planted. weather permitting, within a year of this approval. Based on these findings, approval of the Land Use Permit is subiect to the following conditions: 1. An Installation Inspection is required to verify tho new trees are planted as stated within the Land Use Permit application and in accordance with Section 11.36 H. a. "Vegetation in the Riverway District shall be managed with the goals of: 1) Maintaining the essential character, quality, and density of existing growth. 2) Screening structures to rnake them visually inconspicuous. 3) Preventing disturbance of environmentally sensitive areas such as but riot lirnited to steep slopes, shorelines, and blufftop areas. 4) Maintaining and restoring historically and ecologically significant plant communities and enhancing diversity. 5) Maintaining and restoring native ground cover, understory, and overstory vegetation." Nicole Hays Nicole.Hays@sccwi.gov (715) 386-4742 Contact Nicole Hays, Land Usc I w Iirw ian, at least 74 hours prior to the replacement to s( hemilp )it inspection at (715) 386-47,12. 2. If the installation inspection reveals more trees have been ren raved, then St. C ro,x (cnmty reserves the right to require additional plantings to meet the Tree Replacement Schedule. St. Croix County reserves the right to require additional native trees to be planted if the approved plantings do not meet Section 17.36 H.a. as defined above. In addition, if the planted trees do not survive, the trees wi I need to be replanted. 3. A Post-Installation inspection is required and to be conducted the following Fall of 2019 to confirm .he plantings survival and Section 11.36 11. a of Lhe I ower St. ( roix Riverway Ordinance has been met. To ensure tree survival, I attached an NRCS document, which explains methods of reducing deer browse damage. ,t_ It is the applicant's responsibility to secure any other required local, state or federal perrrnt(S) and approval(s) prior to land disturbance activity. Failure to comply with the terms or conditions above may result in the revocation of this pernia by the Loring Administrator according to Section 17.36 J. 8.b. This approval is subject to the conditions listed above; it does riot allow for any additional tree removal, construction, structures, or disturbance beyond the limits of this request. Your information wil remain on Tile at the St. Croix County Community Development Department suite. II is your responsibility to ensure compliance with any other local, state, or federal permitting or regulations, including Contacting the town of Troy and the Department of Natural Resources to inquire if additional permissions are required. I his pennit is valid for one year to ensure compliance is met. The placard must be posted on the job site and visible from public view. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns : am typically available Monday f riday from 8:00 a.m. - 5'00 p.m. ResPectfully, Nicole Hays Land Use Technician II CC: File ec (C ovf~(!0~. 6?!1)r..~,,rm -I,: ne ; Town of Troy _:=,nc~L act,:=:;c ; Owner enc: NRCS Reducing Deer Browse Damage Nicole Hays Nicole.l iays(o)sccwi.gov (715) 386-4742 Reducing Deer Browse Damage 1 DeCembc- 106, A Sunuuan of`fcchriiques to R, duri D xi Browse: Damage on NewlN Planted I ices and Shrubs C'xcessive deer browsing on necaic planted trees and shrubs reduces the benefits of conservation practices. Gaps in windbreaks, erosion in riparian areas and reduction of plant and wildlile diversity' are a few of the impacts of deer predation. For the affected trees, deer predation creates double or multiple leaders, increases susecptibilit~ to frost damage. weakens branching, creates poor fornt. provides a path for disease or insect infestation. suppresses seedling height and increases morlaht . Row planting of'wo odd species in windbreaks. li\ in;, snow fences. riparian litrest buffers. bottomland forests and wildlile habitats lags orit a cornucopia for deer that they cannot resist. '[lie problems associated with deer predation are not new. Studies of deer-deterrents. even electric lencing, were published as far hack as N"). In the past 10 to 15 year's a number ofproducts. techniques and methods have been developed and marketed that claim to deter deer lr(ni munching on newlx planted trees and shrubs. Products include physical harriers such as hod caps. fencing or individual protectors and chemical deterrents using malodorous tbmiulations or bitter lasting compounds. 1 his document summarizes different techniques to diseOar LC (leer predation and offers guidance on devclopim, a deer browse control plan. Realisticdl. deer predation will not be completek eliminated by am method: a 50 percent reduction is an achievable goal and will usually result in salisfi in,, program cover requirements. 13\ analvrini, (leer behavior and reaction io harrier., more effective dewrrem methods call he developed. I isied beloware some behaviors (leer exhibit that nrn he useful in de\ eloping a deterrent plan. Learns lu tolerate: had taste or smell. colored strobe li;-hts. sirens and loud noises: .[tulips hiLh (up to 12 lirl with sufficient motivation? or far trip to ?0 Icct with sufficient motivation). but not both at same time: Crawls through openings as small as 7.5 inches: More likely to jump fences in woodlands than in open areas: Learns to remove bud taps and neuinL protectiriv terminal buds: Pol lows customary paths to known food sources: Tests fiir weaknesses in am arid all harriers. repeatedly: Nibbles youn.L stems cnxr.vin , from tube protectors and chemical repellents. The more stressed the deer, the more yulnerablc the plant. F:xtrciiie cold and deep snow restricts the movemeni of deer therehv intensifj ing. the pressure on sccdlill2s and saplings in a locale. If food supplies are decreased due to (Irou_ht. flood. over-population. competition from other hnmscrs or another reason. a sturdier harrier is required. No solution is 100 percent cflcctive: a >0 percent reduction of deer browse is considered crrt successful:: 0 percent is more likcl. The level of protection and the associated expense depends on the value of the plants to he protected. .a greater level of protection is needed around crops. orchards and tree plantations such I Authored by Gin-cr Kopp. `ARCS Staic Staff Foresicr', St. Paul. MCI. 55 10L Dec. '.007 as for C'hrisunas trees than tier ripa:'ian arras and windbreaks. Still. a failed planting due to (leer predation Je rades the conscnation practice. costs the landowner and (castes public financing. :1IETIJO/AS' OF LOL TFRREN'T.S Replantinp if you have the resources. time and patience: mac or maN not work Exclosures lencing, nettiriL. protectors and other physical barriers: variable elTectiveness Avoidance shock. smell. noise. visual curs ( Ilaggingl: may work fix a short time Undesirabilil\ - fear repellents. irritants. llavor avoidance conditioning: must reapply often Availability - accessible and desirable alternative fi raec: vcrv effectiv(• with other methods Elimination - fatal solution. carcass disposal. laws: very effective - few permits granted. REPLANTING When deer predation creates a practice failure. replanting mad he required. llow~over. replanting alone without all other berm of deterrent is a path to future failures. Consider substituting a less desirable species lsce Appendix Al ((hen replanting the conservation practice and couple this wNith art casih accessible food plot or hedgerow with desirable plants to draw deer away from the conservation area. Another stratcuy is to hide the conservation plants among, undesirable species creating a visual and physical harrier. 1'he 'co\ CC trees can he designed to lead deer to a more acceptable feeding site. I_ se \RCS Conscr\ation Practice Standard free%Shruh I..stablishmenl. Code 612. for replanting trees and shrubs damaged or consumed by (leer. Complen[cntan practices for controlling deer incursion into the necv stand include Hedgerow Planting. Code 422 for wildlife food. cover and corridors: ponce. Code 383 for excluding deer, and if an alternatic°e food plot is used Upland SS ildlife I labitat Managcment. Code 64~. Replanting. br HA"i: under most circumstances will not result in successful establishment. l Icing exclusivch undesirable plants (sec fable I I may he successful onh if the site conditions are suitable for the specie.( and the deer are not starving. EXCLOSURES Exclosures are physical harriers that keep deer out and away from conservation plantings. The c\closures may fence out an area. or protect an individual plant or cvcn just cover the terminal leader of a plant. In general cxclosures are non-lethal. Tabor' intcnsivc. cooly, maintenance demanding plant protection devices. There arc advantages and disadvantages for each type of e\c10S111e. I cnccs, whether permanent or temporary. arc the most effective exclosurc method but need rc gular maintenance and arc the most e\pensivc choice. Tree shelters protect newly planted seedlings vet may he considered unsighth and arc often poorly installed. Bud caps or terminal nets arc: inexpensive vet can be lost under van ing condition,,..ludge \chether it is best to protect individual plants or vulnerable plant parts or ,ycludc the whole area when decidinr on a deer del (bent. Bud CaRS/vetting Bud caps work on the. lheorA of °0111 of sight out of mind". I f the deer does not see the terminal bud. then it will not cat it hopefully. I his method can he effective where deer browsing is light yet persistent: but if not applied securely. deer learn to pull [lie caps off. Bud caps do not work well on hardwoods bccturu it the time thec° are needed, flower or leaf buds arc sprouting and cannot he covered: also hardwoods have multiple flushes during the growing season and there is no Way to secure find caps on clongatin_- shoots. App] bud caps in the fall. heforc snow covers the ,'round, They should he reapplied every year until the tree is at least 4 feet tall. and the terminal bud is out of case reach of the deer. The hud cap itself is a simlhle demise coII"i~titq, of a piece oI paper xlrappc.I around the leader. covering the terminal buds. Covering about ' I(, ' - of the plants is usual I. a5 eficctive as coy erini, evensing, le plant. Nut more around edge rox%s Ihan middle rows to keep deer from entering the planting. I. sc lightweight paper such as computer or typing paper cut into 4" v b" pieces (quarters) so the caps are light enough Ihal Iher do not cause the leader to bend over clue Io the weight of the bud cap. Other bud capping materials include: office paper, computer paper. old forms printed on card stock. index cards. cm~clopes. waterproof paper. tin foil, and plastic mesh or netting among other materials. The bud cap should he stapled in at least places forming a tube. 'file staples should catch some needles to hold it in place. frees should be at (cast P feet tall or have a sturdy leader if shorter. before bud caps are applied. ;A strong leader is important or lire hveight of the cap. particular)\ what wet. map cause the leader to droop therehN delonnim, the tree. Tenninal buds should be about inch bchm the top of the bud cap. Idealh this protects the terminal bud hahilc still allowing the Iree to grohc through the paper durine the nest L•rowina season. Brohv sing, of side branches and buds is not as detrintcnial to the health and survival of pines unless the trees are to be used as Christmas trees or landscape trees. Iiohvever. bud capping is probabl\ not the best choice for these ivpes of trees am wa\'. Other than deer learnim_ to pull them off and limited to conifer plantings: disadvantages include premature deterioration ofthe paper IN pe bad caps from escessiye moisture, bending or disfieurem: nt of the terminal leader, regular or annual reapplication. aesthetics and incompatibility with some land uses. Plan the use of bud caps when implementing the MRCS Conservation Practice I rec'Shrub F.stahlishment. Code 01 2. Be aware that nexe scedlinp ma\ have terminal leaders not strone enough to suppot1 a bud cap: especialk when the cap becomes wet. Consult with the local DNR office and the landowner to find out the level of deer browse and when it occurs before applying bud caps to determine that the use will likeh' be effective. Tree''Shrub Protective Dcvices Individual protective devices also known as shelters. tubes, protectors and c.linders. are commonl} used in -Minnesota. This I\ Ile of protective device was developed in Britain and made public in 1079. Shelters are made of plastic materials designed to deteriorate ancr about five years. Shelters weer: on:inalh developed to protect hardwoods front deer brc»vse damage hilt other ads anta~-,es were also discoXcred such as: free shelters allow plantings in irregular patterns or patterns bctmr retlcctim, the landscape and aesthetics of the site: free shelters proy ide a nticroclimate similar to that of a greenhouse eh°ith increased concentrations of CO.. higher temperatures and elevated humidity levels that encourage plant height growth: Tree shelters encourage single stems in trees and shrubs that tend to have multiple stems or sprouts. Althou_ li tcmncratures in tits shelter during summer months hvcre higher than the ambient temperatures. rarely were plants killed by the heat. In fact larger trees with more leaves had lower mortality rates than smaller trees likeh due Io greater transpiration rates of the largcr plants that provided enough of a coolim_ effect. Increased CO, levels stimulate stem elongation while eNtra humidiiv reduces moisture stress. F.acessive stem clomptutn. physiologically known as etiolation. is linked to lower light levels in opaque shelters which can be up 10 77 ! percent less than ambient light ley cls. Lower light levels cause etiolation hCCaUSC the plain is drawl towards the hri,-hter light source at the top of the shelter. Utiolation occurs at the expense of diameter grotit7h and taper (narrowing of stems towards the top of the plant i. Lack of wind action on woody plants grown in shelters causes them to form weak stems without it taper. This makes them susceptible to lodging and breakage on windy days ifthe shelters are removed too carp. Keeping the shelters in place two to three years after crown emergence. even il' the terminals arc out of reach to deer. is recommended to give time for the stems to become vvindlirm. Once the shelters are removed. height growth slows down in favor of diameter grow 4m and a natural taper k formed. The shelters need to he renamed before the stem diameter reaches that of the shelter. Studies show that after six to twelve years dcpcndin' p on the species and site conditions. sheltered tees and unsheltered trees have the same average height and diameter. I here are disadvantaycs with using individual shelters. I recs in shelters oficn do not harden off in time to avoid die-hack of new growth from CXtrCnle cold weather. To avoid this situation it is lVCOnIIIIOnded that the shelters are 'lifted- up' a few inches in the hill to facilitate hardening-off. then re-positioned before snow and extreme cold sets in. In a large area this would be prohibitivcly labor intensive. Another alternative is to use shelters with vent holes. "Goose-necks " or crooks in stems are oral formations that are a result of stems rubbing up tpainst the edge of the shcher. These deformations nmay make the tree more susceptible to wind or nee dam tc. Some shelters lime smoothed or rolled edges no avoid this i` pe of damage. Shelters do not overcome inhercnlh poor site conditions such as a low site index for the species. Do not depend on the ';,rccnhousc effect' to substitulc for poor soil or site conditions. Weed control is essential for the success of tree shelters; however. one problem brought tip in the literature is that the use of fabric mats with tree shelters acts as a magnet Ibr deer. The theory is that the mats make the plants more visible to them. Other considerations Installing shelter!, on individual trees and shrubs is labor intensive and time consurning. I or \cn large areas a fence will probably he more effective and economical. \dcquatc maintenance is required to strak,hten Ieanin- trees. secure stakes heaved by frost action and replace broken stakes. lost metal stakes oxidiic and became weak making them a poor substitute for wood stakes. Rotting and hreaLwe of wood stakes can he minimized b\ applying a wood preservative before usin<_. Usirn_ treated stakes is another alicrnative. In general rigid (solid). plastic tree shelters are for hardwoods not conifers. lfconifers need protection beyond bud caps. nelting or mesh n pe tree shelters are reconunended. I f mesh. wire or nettin_ shelters arc used. check rectularly that branches arc not growing through the openings to cusure easier removal and less damage. Mesh opening's no larucr than :t, inch are recommended. Wire 'c-\ hnders are mare expensive. but can be re-used unlike the polypropylene or plastic which max or ma\ not hroakdown as advertised. Impronerh installed shelters can become a nesting and feeding ground for rodents. Shelters must at least touch the ground and it is hest to slighth sink them into the ground when securing them. :\dcquatc weed control will discourage rodents from feeding around the stctrls. 4 I reel and shrubs will he s'irdled and killed it the sheitc: doc. not dctcrioratc or is not removed hs the time the stem diameter ecpands to the shelter diameter. Shelters can harbor hark-damaginc insects if left on too long. vacakeninu or killing the tree or shrub. I Lee shelters are planned under the MRCS Conservation Practice Standard freeiShrub Fstablishntent. Code 61' and WindbreakiShelterbelt Establishment. Code 380. Consult %Nnh the local DUR office and the landova net to find out if the severity of deer browse suggests that tree shelters are necessary. Fences Fences can exclude animals or direct them to another area. or to another control technique. I f effective (leer predation is essential for highh valuable plantings. or in sensitive areas. then an adequate fence is the onh practical and economical solution. Fences can be permanent or tcntporan. mam different materials are available and good designs have been developed. I hrwever. fences can be expensiyc bccausc of labor, materials and maintenance costs. They also limit equipment access tc the protected areas. If improperh° constructed. a fence could trap an adycnturous deer resulting not onh harm to the protected plants. but also to the fence and to the deer. Research sho\cs that fences coulu interrupt natural animal migrations patterns of deer and non-target migrating species. Jumping to a vertical height of at Ieasl eight list. deer can scale over harmers you ntay think are impossible. AA atchin, a deer confronted with a vertical- ciuht ioot tall. high-tensile vv ire fence then yvatchina it leap over from a standing position makes a startlim, impression. A frightened deer may hurdle a fence as high as 12 feet if riven a running start and enough adrenalin. 1 kqizonttdly. a deer may leap I > to ,0 feet, the li,n rr distance onh x\ hen fri htened. In ; cncral. a deer mad jump high or lone.. but not both at the same time. Deer have also been known to crakO under fences and through openings as small as inches. The will ofa deer to penctr.ate a fence is dependent on the force of the ntolivation behind it. An excellent treatise on fencinu to control deer predation is "Fences anc Deer-Uamage Manaecmenl: A Re\icy\ of Dcsi ms and Ffficacv° by Kim C. VerCautereu. el al. You can find a eofe of this document in Section I of the eFOTG. Much of the material in this section is summarized from this reference. Fence %j jyes Wire Mesh Wire ntc:sh t. pe fences include: woven ire. chain link. welded wire. mesh and rigid-mesh panels. 'this n_ pe of fcncc is most suitable for permanent or long-term protection and is also the most cxpcnsi\ e option. Woven \yire is more expensive than welded cyire. but it is more durable. lasting up to '0 years with minimal maintenance. and can tollo\y contours of the land. I or (leer icrncing. 1'. g<mge of hi<gh-tensile steel is recornntcndcd: asim tension curves on horizontal wires. 1 he clasticit~ of this type of material minimizes harm to a deer that collides vn ith the il-ncc and facilitates instillation on oneven terrain. I o prohibit deer from craMing larder the fence a single- ,trand of high-tensile wire or barbed wire can be placed hctwccn the fence %vire and the ground to narrovN gaps greater or equal then 7.5 inches. Slanted ire-Nlesh Fence I he dimentional effect of slanted fences confuses the depth of field of deer that discourages am attempt to iump over the fence. Llectrif\ ing the slanted fence provides even better deterrent capailihtics. A typical desi.Lm is a '.iyc-10o.. tall. seven-strand. high-tensile wire fiance at a 4~,degree angle to the ground. ]'his tYpe of fence takes up more space than a vertical fence and maintaining vegetation around it is more difficult. Fie aware that using barbed wire rather than smooth wire may cause animals to gcx cntamuled while attempting to penetrate a barbed wire fence. Spacing between the strands should be less than 7.i inches. Llectric Fences 'T'hese arc expensive s.stems designed to protect high-quality crops. livestock feed, orchards. nurseries and other bights valued woods plants. A common set up is a minimum charge o1'6.000 volts on a lov\-impedance ener,izcr with a six Im tall high-tensile wire knee using 7 to R wires with alternative positive and negative current. Poly tape and Pol\ rope These alternate materials are durable, easy to work with and cost comparable with traditional vaire electric knees. Beim highhvisible they minimize collisions and there arc lecver incidences of vegetation shorting out the IenCC when used with ]ow-impedance energizers and running positive and negative charges on alternating strands. A single-strand electric fence of polvtape or pok rope mac be etiect:ce if <iccr pressure is light or if only temporu-c delerrents are required such as for miuratim! herds. Fencin<-• coated will: chemicals Using an attractant, such :is peanut hotter. with an electrified fence causes aversion by encouragim_, the deer to touch the L-lectrif ied lence. therchp experiencing the shock and henceforth avoiding the area. Peanut butter or another attractant is spread on half ofa piece of tin foil and the tin foil is folded over the electrified wire and stuck fo itself be the peanut butler. Deer are shocked as tilev try to taSle the peanut huller. Malodorous chemical repellents have also been used with electric fences. In both cases these methods deter feeding under moderate deer pressure. Gates The on] efi'ectke gates are closed gale,. obvious yes, vet not akyavs practiced. Gates must he as tall as the knee eel casv to use. In desi-nim-, gates, consider the means of removing animals that have hrcachcd the Imes. Onc-wa\ tales are available for this purpose. Reler to the NRCS Conservation Practice Standards Pence. Code 3S2. Hedgerow Plantine. Code 4?' or I'se Exclusion Codc 47' for more information about installine fences or other structures for excluding deer. Deer pressure must be scvcrc and the value of trees or shrubs high 10JUN.lik file expense of fencing. A\'OIDANC'E / UNDESIRABILITY Avoidance techniques use scare tactics to deter deer hum browsing plants. Deer learn from ncualke lcedback when to im, to browse protected plants. Avoidance includes had tastim, chemicals. noise. lights. shock or pain. Noise and lights mac work for vcrv short periods of time but are not cl'fectivc for a persistent problem since deer become used to the noise and lights. Note: in the iollowinL discussion mention of specif is products does not mean endorsement of the product by USDA. Chemical repellents Chemical repellents are short-term solutions used in the followin'U situations: cohere deer predation occurs over a limited time period such as durine late winter, %\hen deer browse can be predicted such as along miuration routes: or where regular applications are needed and practical until threat of damage has passed. 6 I Chemical repellent elf::ctivcness depends on: palatabdiIv of protected plant. population dcnsit. and nutrrher afanimals. mobiIit'\ ufthe problem animals. availabihiV and palatability of alternate lora_~c. weather, and amount and concentration otrcpellcnt. Chemical repellents wark hest y0en palatable alternate forage is available or is made available nearby. Repellents are cfli•ctivc only on \°egetation (foliaoci they cover: ncyN growth emerging after application is not protected. Repellents work by decreasing a plants desirability where the eflicacv depends on the intrinsic palatabilitN of the crop plant compared to the desirabilm or mailahility to any alternative lbrage plants. I f a plant is particularh dc;irahlc to deer. it nrty be consumed regardless of the repellent. Repellents have different mode< of action which include: fear. pain, taste and conditioned aversion. I c•ar induced aversions arc usuall\ Sulfurous odors such as predator urines that provoke an aversion response WoW lets get out of here! L Conditioned aversion causes animals to krnn an association hemeen the treated plant and illness like a stomach ache. causing the deer to avoid the plant in the future. Pain causing chemicals such as capsaicin )pcppert. ammonia or other compounds irritates the eves. mouth, nose and (-'Ill. Biller tasks,, compounds containing denalonium benzoate are another mode. of chemical repellent that sometimes works. Rcncllcnts arc most cft'cctivc yahen: the damage is inflicted over a specific and relativch short duration such as on a reforestation site where dama(ue occurs as deer migrate hehaeen %v imcr and summer ranges: they arc applied in areas with readih available alternate )image, 'hungn animals arc more difficult to deter than satiated animals'. Products directh applied to the plant (topical application) are more effective than pellets or scent packets. capsules or broadcast spray ing. In a head-to-head studs of ?(t deer chemical repellents. pubiishcd if] '001 by the Wildlili• I oMicly. Deer A% av Big Game Repellent (powder formi and Plantskvdd consistently reduced deer predations sieniticanth more than am other chemical repellent tested. Boll) of these repellents rely on fear as a deterrent rather than taste (bitterness). It is important to folltm package instructions and repeat applications throughout the %car as necessary. In tests. these chemicals were effective for two-three months before reapplication was needed. There arc ratan\ other chemical products on the open market and many homcoyyners have developed their oyvn concoctions touted as heing cflcclk c as or more so than the commercial products. Onlc Planlskcdd and Ueer.Awav Bie Game Repellent (powder lorrn) have documented independent scientific tests shoving consistent and effective decreases in deer browse damage and are the only two chemical repellent products eligible for I QIP tunding under the Practice Standard Inyasivc Planl Species Pest fv1amagemenl. Code 7q' in the F.QIP payment schedule. Am products providing independent reproducible scientific proof of consistent and effective decrease in deer browse damage can he considered for cost-share through the normal approval process ksith -N RCS. Pro<Iram participants can apple all repellent deemed cllective if a deer browse problem exists. however. onh the above Iwo products arc eligible for LQIP cost-share at this time. \\eather plays a part in protecting plants. Kepellents are dissoh~cd or diluted bN rain or covered with snoyv reducing the :flcctivcncss of the repellents to the point where they become useless. Reapplication may he necessary. The protected area needs to be regularh checked to insure that the repellent is present and in sufficient amount to remain, effective. The concentration of the product needs to he sufficient to deter deer and should be the minimal effective amount. If a lower concentration seems to he ineffective then stronger concentration may work: however by this time the deer' ma\ already be habitualed to the bad taste or smell. Chemical repellents are often found to be more effective on small areas and less effective on larger areas beer must spend more time and enerw moving to untreated fora;oc as protected areas increase. In larger areas it is harder to maintain a consistent concentration of the product. Also, the lamer the area. the further deer must travel to desirable plants and theN mac decide that the closer plants. however had tasting or smelling., are much more conxement. In Published studies no repellent compleichstopped predation (browsing I by deer or other ungulates. Fie goal is to reduce predation so that the tree and shruh establishment practice meets the ntinirnunt standard required fix the proerant. The use Of chemical deterrents can be included when planning and designing the NRCS Conservation Practice Standard I rec;Shrub EstahlishrnClll. Code (+l?. Application of chemical repellents maN he cost-shared in I,QIP under the practice standard Pest Management. Code jWj. in the pavmerit schedule. Timing is important when usin , chemical repellents and the) nxtst he reapplied after a heavy rain or snow tall and until deer pressure is reduced. AV;IILABILITY The imporancc of available. palatable forage cannot he oxcrstated. I lungr\' deer and other uneulares such as elk will Iced on treated plants if hunger overcomes their Icar response. Studies shove that chemical repellents are more effective on less palatable plants than on high) palatable plants, an obvious conclusion verified by studies. but little used in tree and shrub planting desiens. Interspersing higher palatable plants in hemeen less desirable plants will help hide the desirable ones and create a phy sical harrier in getting to them. listablishing a strategicalb. -placed wildlife food plot can work to move deer away from the conservation practice if room exists for the lood plot. lrse VRCS Conservation Practice Standards t:pland Wildlife I labitat .Management. Code 645. to design food plots as alternate feeding areas for troublesome deer or I ledgeroM Plantiv,. Code 422 to provide food, cover and corridors. 'I hose arc supplemental practices that arc most effective when combined with other deer manaocment control methods. ELIMINATION Fliminatin deer that have learned to penetrate harriers is vcr\ effective. Deer teach others in the herd where to find food and the only solution ma_v he to remove the lead deer so the learned behav for cannot be passed on. Managing the deer herd population is controversial oct efl'ectivc. Hovvevcr. a landowtier may see an anno\ Ing and costly pest while the neighbor sees only 'Bamhi'. Decreasing herd rnunhers through hunting anrlerless deer will reduce deer populations and hrowsc damage. landowners can decide if they want to rent out their land for huntim, or hire a specialist to remove antlerless deer or Icad deer. Minnesota DNR does not consider deer a nuisance ,mimal that can be taken under the nuisance law. In fact \PV DNR considcrc deer a protected game species. 'I he Wildlife Damage program vvas created to help resolve problems when wildlife ruins specialrv crops. Spccialth crops include fruits, vegetables, turf, honed sources. stored forage. row crops vnhen damaged by geese, and disease nr<urnsement within > miles of a tuberculosis infected livestock herd. t rider these conditions the DNR may he able to provide materials and expertise to rcducc or eliminate the damage caused b}' tvi ldh ie. Special permits for out-of-season hunts arc considered as a last resort by DNR. Landowners need to wort: with their area wildlife nranaL_'cr to get it pcrutit and will need to prove that the damage is severe and all other measures to minimize damape have- hecn unsuccessful. These measures include legal in-season hunts. I or row crops. forage or conifer plantar ions v er- fcvv pcmn1s arc issued. 8 M hell a permit is issued the hunt is restricted to anikrlcss deer. the deer must he field dressed and the landowner cannot keep an of the deer taken. I here are more rules, contact file local area DNR cviIdIHe manager for more information. There are no MRCS Conservation Practice Standards or cost -share prov isions for deer elimination. DLER BROWSE N1ANACEN1ENT PLAN Lffcctive manaLmnent of problematic deer takes a multifaecied approach. Just like cnnu'olline weeds takes an integrated pest manlagcment approach that considers all the pests behaviors. habitats and environmental factors, the same can he done Ibr deer land other animal pests of plants i. 1,1111C is a synopsis ofthe methods discussed in this technical note that can he used to help design a deer broumsc management plan. Deer browse management plans should consider the hollowing: I. A1sCSstnent describe the problem and quantil} or quality the damage including costs, delermine cc°hat is catlsi IL the dam.12C (visual sightinus, tracks. feces, trails. hurrovv SNslcros. bite characteristics. sears on stems or trunks and migraton patterns), pattern of damage. Population size and dcnsilk. travel routes. seasonal food prclerenc:es. ,tenerally more damage occurs with winter Iecdinr, than summer lecding due to axailahilits of prelerred forage. Site characteristics: size of the site to be protected - proximity to altcntative available food. open land is less desirable to deer than cover. can other wildlife predators be controlled as well (rabbits. beaver. woodchucks. etc) I echniques - depends on landowner objectives. goal of project. IcnsitN. population and t\ pe of animal causing the damage. and severity ofdamage. Determine the conscqucnces of cacti technique tier ecological. economic and social issues. l-:ffectiveness will depend on knovvledtte and heha~°ior of problem species. ecological consegnetices of the selected methods, interaction hehceen the environment and the chosen techniques. Assess risk to non-target species. keep costs in mind. are the costs reasonable to the expected reduction in darnaix Strategy - plan hosa the chosen technique(s) will he implemented. One technique can be employ ed to slop the damage while another to prevent future damage. List equipment and materials needed and amounts. Acquire permits and safcly oquiprnent. d. Implement apply the techniques to the treatment area. Document the work dome. sine changes needed once on-site and furore management plans. Results - monitor resuhs to judge etfectiveness. Changes in usual conditions such as variations in site conditions, population levels, weather, feeding conditions and other' factors mac aflecl expected results. f{Ilsure that off site cflccts are nit dama,tin., ncarhv ccological eor1111nr11111c5 Or thl'Calclled i11A1 eJ1 C{IIl!'ere:i specie`. - - t) I able l: Susceptibility of plants to deer danrt_-c`r Frequent Occasional Seldom" Rare>: Cotannvoods Aspen American hittersxnect elders - ('herries Basswood Ashes Beech - Crabapples Cotoneasters Lilacs Balsam fir*, Dogwoods Domn , .tviceben-\ Noma.\- NTrucc_ Bluc spruce Lasiern Whitt: Pin, Lasiem t edccdar Red pine --Ilonevsuckles 1 lackherry I Icmlock Scotch pine lack Pinc*;`" 1lazehuits Juneherr \1'hite birch:; Maples Stas.horn sumac - - - Whitespruce I Northern white-cedar Vihurmtms Oaks 1~'illows - PIumS - itchhazel Smooth sumac fellow birch - It feedin,. pressure is great. use this table to choose plants less desirable to deer. L se These species if deer browse is severe. or plant these around more desirable species as phv sical and visual barriers. These species are prelerred b\ deer in the northwest quarter anti north central areas of NIN and should be considered in the Frequent catcgor} in those regions (Balsam fit 'Occasional'). Lack of diversity in shrubs and hardwoods has altered the typical deer preference for these species. Local herds in other areas may also have preferences different from this table. Contact the local DNR for more information. l tt X4.3 ~ 'r L m - J G G l J y J N 'J y ~ y- N ry 41 y .N N y ' = r ~ ~ ~ 1 J y .y. J y J L~ - v G U p, 7 L J L J G ✓ ~ _ y rn J L L j- y J t~ - ~ ,I. V :i - y J _ _ ~ - y p T _ Y U - JL - C - :Jr r - _ - T = L y `v N- J P v _ i y r r y y - - r_ - i 6 Y y y - L J: J 75 J - y ^LL - U - - YQ 2. 72 v - C r~ _ ti _ y - - y - L r J J _ r✓ - _ y ~ ~ - _ i Imo' 'J 1: V' N - - _ r r b y - - Y - - _ ti V 1 f• - r - _ ~iK fJ L 1!. r C- _ ~ J U r - ~ J iL V N r G Vl~. i r p- .yl - J _ r _ f/i I 'W .r. ~ a/ J J J J r 4 r(1 J. J r i/ ~r1 V J. ~ Y Y I - C ti L ~ N j - - J cs - 7L C L J .cf - V 11 i Y y - y - r N - :J ~ J J J~ J. _ / f J RUERI~NCLS Deer Browse DamaLe and Manasement Fisher. Kimberh A. and Samuel klocksien. White-tailed deer (Oelocoilerec Orainicnu sl and the restoration of eastern white pine (Pimi% surohuc). Restoration and Reclamation Revie\c Student on-Line Journal. I Iniy. NIN. St. Paul. MN. I',p. Kimball. Bruce A.. Dale L. Nolte and Kclly B. Pem. 2005. 1 hdroh_zed casein reduces bro\Nsin_- o'.'trees and shrubs b\ white-tailed (leer. I IortSci. Vol. 40(61. 1810-1814. Rcindl. Nick. Personal communication. NINDNR Depredation Specialist. Brainerd. MN. Russell F. Leland. David R. Lippin and Norma L. Fowler. 2001. Ftlccts of white-tailed deer <hiocoilem~ rir (,,it iamis) on plants. plant populations and communities: A Review. Ant. MO. Nat. 146 No. 1. 1-26. Fencing %IN Landscape Arboretum. I- nip. NIN and DNR \Vildlifc DamaLe Management Program. G_u_idclincs for F.ycludin<< Deer and Other Wildlife From Your Garden. Brochure. O'Dell. Charlie. 1997. I.ov(-Cast Slant Fence Excludes Deer from plantings. Dept. of Hort. VA I cch. Blacksburg. VA. Commercial horticulture Nc(asleucr, Sept.-Oct. VerCauteren, Kurt C.. Michael 1. I.avelle and Scott I Iv;_nstrom. 2006. Fenccs and deer-damage mana,,ement: A reyie\\ of dcsi_'ns and efficacy. Wildlitc Societe Bulletin. ?4(1 191-200. Discussing Multiple ,Alethods Craven. Scott and Scott I h <-mstrom. 1997. G?08± Controllinu Deer Damasc in Wisconsin. t WI Cooperalivc Extension. Fdgc. Greg. '005. A I'Cv% 1clcas [or Managing Deer Browse on I rce Plantings. `iDNR Division of I orcctr\. 5p. 1 lodge. Sinurn and I Iarrv Pepper. 1998. The Prevention of Manurial _Damage to T reel in Woodland. Forestr% Practice. Practice Note. lulc, 1998. Marquis, David A. 197. Dcvices'I o Protcct_Serdlirn~s From Dcer Brawsim_. FS Rcscarch'\otc \F-14'), USDA FS. Northeastern Forest Experiment Sta. 7p. Marsh. Rea F.. Ann F. Koehler and Terrell 1'. Salmon. 1990. LXCluslonan' methods and materials to protect plants from pest mammals A Review. Vertebrate pest conference procccdin_!.s collection. Proceedings of the tiutrteenth vertebrate pest conference. t Iniv ersith of Nebraska - Lincoln. Pierce. Robert A. 11. and Fmie P. 1k ioUerS. Controllini Dccr Damaee In Missouri. MS School of Natural Resources. 25p Stange, Erik F. and Kathleen I., Shea. 1998. F Accts of deer browsing., fabric mats. and tree shelters on Ouercur ruhro ,cedfinus. Restoration Fcolo<-,N A'A, 6 \o. L .'_9-,l. Repellents LI I lani. Abdcrrahim and Michael K. Conover. 199. Cornparttive Analysis of Deer Repellents. USDA National Wildlilc Research (-enter S%niposia. National Wildlife Research Center Repellents Conference. t ~niversily of NE-Lincoln. 1 Op. Kimball, BrUCC A.. and Dale I.. Nolte. 2006. Development of a neon deer repellent for the protection of forest resources. West. J. Appl. For. 21(2). 108-111. Mac(io-k%an. Brian .L. Lam Severcid and Fred Skemp. Jr. 2004. Control of Deer Damage with Chemical Repellents in Regenerating Hardwood Stands. In: Black walnut in a new century. procccdines of the (rt'', alnut Council research symposium. Jule >-28. Laimcuc, IN. Gen. I ech. Rep. NC-243. St. Paul. NiN. USDA. Forest Service. North Central Research Sta. 188 p. Nolte. Dale. 1995. F.ff icacv of selected repellents to deter deer browsine on conifer seedlings. International Biodcierioration & Biodegradation 42. 101-107. N'a<<ner. Kimlicrh K. and Dale L. Nolte. 2001.Comparison of active ingredients and delivcr\ wstems in deer repellents. Wildlife Societe Bulletin _'9i i Tree Shelters Balandicr. P. 199-. A method to evaluate needs and cflicicncv of lormative pruning, of fasl- grO\\ ing hroad-leaved trees and results of an annual Pruninc. Can. J. I or. Res. 27. 309-516. Duhois. Mark R.. Arthur 11. Chappelka. Lfrem Robbins. Grc~t Somcrs and Karl Baker. '_000. I ree shchers and weed control: Elllcts on protection. survival and t nmIII + irh;'rn bark oak secdlin_ts planted on a cutover site. New Forests 20. 1(h-118. 1 vans..lulian. l,se and abuse of treeshelters. FTNO;04. _'P. Gillespie. Andrew K., Ronald Rathtim and Richard K. Nhers. 1990. Rehabilitating a young northern red oak planting with tree shelters. North. J. Appl. Ior. 11( l '4-29. Hunt. R. S. '002. Can solid deer protectors prevent blister rust from attacking "bite pines'? ('an. ,I. Plant Pathol. 24. 74-76. I elty. Matthew. .1. and David B. Kittredge. 1986. Potential applications of British tree shelters to hardvaood regeneration in the northeastern C nited States. No. J Applied For. 3. 17.-174. 1 antagne. Douglas ll. and Ra\ mond Miller. 1997. Tree shelters fail to enhance height emx\1h of northern red oak in the Upper Peninsula of Michi,,-an. Proceedings. 1 I'" central hardwood conicivnce, Columbia. \10. March 33-'0. 1997. 1 _SDA FS North Central For. Fap. Sta. St. Paul. NIN GT155. O ict, Juan A. and Douglass 1'. Jacobs. 2007. Nlicroclimatic conditions and plant morpho- phvsiological devcioprncn; within a tree shelter cnvironnrcnl (luring establishment ofOucrctec iirs saxllings. rlgricullurtl and Lorest Nleieorolo,r~ 144. 58-72. Ponder. Felix, Jr. 200' . I en-\°car results of tree shelters on survival and t'rowth of planted hardwoods. North. J. Appl. For. 0(3). 104-108. Potter. Mark .I. 1988. Treeshelters improve survival and increase early growth rates. Journal of l oresU'.. Augqust '.958. I Share". I lailu and Anne Hairston-Strang. 200~, A comparison of seedling growth and light transmission arnong, tree shellers. No. 1 ..Applied For. 23(2). 103-1 10. Smith, 11. Clas. 1992. Development of Red Oak Seedlings Using Plastic Shelters on I lard%%ood Situ in k\ csl \ Iruinia. FS Research Paper. NL-67'.. ( ISDA I'S Northeastern Forest Laperimcnt Sla. 1 11). Stocckclrr. 1.11. and IL F. Scholz. A cylindrical screen fbr protecting direct sccdlirws of forest tree species. 1. of Poresln. 18:-183. ' twhlin-cr- H. Christoph. 1e11}ev A. Earl Rebecca A. MontF,,on cn and Buren B. DcFcc 11. 3006. A comparison of Lree shelters and their effects on seedling survival and ,rowth oI'm o bottomland hardwood species: First-year results. Poster Sunman. Proceedirws of the 1', biennial southern silvicultural research contcrence. Caen. Fech. Rep. SITS-93. Swistock- Bran R., Kelp A. MCCLUn and William E- Sharpe. 1999. Summer temperatures inside ventilated and unventilated brown plastic trecshcltcrs in Penns% hania. No. J. Applied For. 16( 1 ?-10. tSDA I'S. 1996. Procccdim,s of the Tree Shelter Confcrcncc..lLine 30 1995. I larrisburg PA. John C. Brissette ed. I_SDA FS Northeastern For. Lxp. Sta. C)cn. Tech. Rep. NF-22 1. \A'ahers. Russell, S. 1993. Protecting Red Oak Seedlings with free Shelters In Nortiyestern Pennsylvania. I'S Research Paper \F:-679. USDA 1'S Northeastern For. Lxp. Sta. 9p. N` est. David 1I., Arthur 11. Chappclka- Kenneth M. Tilt. I Ian-v G. Ponder- and .1. David Williams. 1991). Effect of tree shelters on sun i\ a], growth. and wood qualox of 1 1 tree species commonh plailled in the soUthera 11nltccl Sidle,. 1. Of '\'b01'ICUl1Ur'e _'5I I. 69 i. .5 L- 0 Q U a E i O cA CL E ui U ' 0 m O 'a O N U N N Q 4- ~ O o X N :3 p c (D 0 C m 0 cn U 0 4- ca U C O ch -Q O ~ d L a U m coca m cn U E 2 E o Q c o1 _o t U c - U O Q cC a C fn J H' O Q ST. CRO gNTY *LAND USE PERMIT File p: .0 y APPLICATION Offi"""° *vised .May J0i O1G Property Owner: Dale Kaufman Contractor/Agent: LTF Ventures, Inc. Mailing Address: 244 Cove Road Mailing Address: Prior Lake Daytime Phone: (651,248-9177 Daytime Phone: (952) 898-3177 Cell: O Cell: ( E-mail:oveinc@aol.com E-mail: Site Address: 244 Cove Road, Hudson, WI 54016 (See Deed for Legal Description) Property location: 1/4, 1/4, Sec. T. N., R. W., Town of Troy computer H: aO Parcel 040 1155 95 000 Zoning District (Check one): ❑ AG. ❑ AG. II ❑ RURAL RES. 0 RESIDENTIAL ❑ COMMERCIAL ❑ INDUSTRIAL Overlay District (Check all that apply): ❑ SHORELAND 0 RIVFRWAY ❑ FLOODPLAIN ❑ ADULT ENTERTAINMENT I ype of I and Use Permit Request (Check one): Please refer to the current fee schedule on our website. 0 Lower St. Croix Riverway District ❑ Wireless Coin inunication Tower (Co-location) ❑ Shoreland ❑ Temporary Occupancy ❑ Signage ❑ Nonmetallic Mining Operation ❑ Floodplain ❑ Animal Waste Storage Facility ❑ Grading & Filling, 12-24.90/ Slopes ❑ Livestock Facility ❑ Other: ❑ Permit processed in conjunction with a Land Division, Special Exception or Variance State the nature of your request: Proper tree replacement for past tree removal. Zoning Ordinance Reference f attest that the information contained in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Dale Kaufman oa~m3n, .q, c:1 X. K.a 9n. e Property Owner Signature: u31e7uussC7`!IC' 7-or,lxf Date Contractor/Agent Signature: Date ~lZ>r Complete Application Accepted: -AZLI&Ig By:. Fee Received: $ SO. Od g ct q: d t r - 1B 3867f A:.1 St Lois County Govemmen[Center ` 7L381-1~100 Far. :dd(a~m ~ainl rnii H, w:,ue 1!01 Cam,ic hael Road, Hudzon, W1 S,IOllE - www. sccwr us/end • • 1063783 BETH PABST - 'REGISTER OF DEEDS ST. CROIX CO., WI RECEIVED FOR RECORD 04/20/2018 10:12 AM N_kRRAATI DEED EXEMPTS!: REC FEE 30.00 TRANS FEE 1,517.40 THIS DEH), inatic'ttcrwccn NIatilvn Schuchinan. at) URITN uTicd pel'son 1'-Gl'anto{'), and Dale F. hawinall. a sinLle PAGES: 2 • 'The above recording information ttcryoIli. I coll"liveh. `Gratlte._ 'i. verifies that this document has Grantor. for valuable consiticration, herbx conveys to been electronically recorded Grtntce the I'iillowine described real estate, together with the rents. 8 returned to the submitter p-o`its. fixtures and otiia anpurterant interests. in tit. Croix Co'.inty. 'e\risconsin f"Proper,. " attached l-.xhibr Accordine Arz San:: and keuur. Ado,", Da.c F. Kaufman 1: Cove Roan Nordi Hudsoc. \1.1 i4016 ranlor +arrantz tha: taC title to the I':'opet2p I. Lo( d. indc(casibk in lcc ~i ple - - and lice and clear of ene:nnhrances except: :\n\ r!strictiUr. it cC ara ions. Cc%Cnan:>. res I-\TSLj 0:1S_ aiiil CaS:a'ICi1lS UI r.:000iI. 04: q: 00i 1'ar,c1 Identification Nuribers (t".N I?r.5 Is iunnesten:i propcrtr. ~vnted ihc, 15° :Sat u'. April. 201S _ *A1ariLT S:hacnmari•~~ At'I't1F:N'17t A 1'10N S I ATE OF N1 CN'GSO i A CCANTY CIF Oiainineton .ancrnicamd :his dao o.` ..?IIK. ' FcrsrIDl:h came he&r. a:c Im, 166 car at :1priL 2014. ihc atxrve 1,Wned Marilrr s i u h)r n , :u: t nr t Irriea pe u r j.: :nc~Anon'n to k c:c person %,Lo c•srrutnd tnc for tc ms tnst ,m nt aqF rgAho\ c bell the same. ! I :'L ' M6N1Bc:K c 1 A I c [tAR OF ISC ONSIN _ y y / l Vl vutnorirrd h., § 10h.0+. U$, Sla's Notary 1,11M <; N'ashm.cwr Ccamly. N1N ' N1.% Cemmaslon r permanem (If nol stale cxplranon dour. I AJS INS FRUNIEN'T \\:•\S DRAT-FED BY :111 oc L.^wi; L_-- _ Bt'S'I h i=:,AN\C,AN LLP _ (!RIDGE- KAY GELONG r•U SouU: S:xdi StreeL Suitc?'OD t F.;aJ] N.inrcapolis. 1.4N 554(:? ~ L~ I4;riL. I Il PLmr; ..Ala t, ~1: ..I i61 i i4-?I?, - S:(s:a:umt m:rc km amhrnl ._.w s' of :r,:uwHgedred luxr ar not n:•cssa-t'.1 'i:anxa or penor.. ngnvs in am ;arm 11 ' mm, he npm nr nnnted helow drcu • Document Number WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made between Marilyn Schuchman, an unmarried person ("Grantor"), and Dale F. Kaufman, a single persons (collectively, `Grantee"). Grantor, for valuable consideration, herby conveys to Grantee the following described real estate, together with the rents, profits, fixtures and other appurtenant interests, in St. Croix County, Wisconsin ("Property"): See attached F,xhibit A. Recording Area Name and Return Address Dale F. Kaufman 244 trove Road North Hudson. WI 54016 Grantor warrants that the title to the Property is good, indefeasible in fee simple and free and clear of encumbrances except: Any restriction, declarations, covenants, reservations, and easements of record. 040-1155-95-000 Parcel identification Numbers (PIN) This is homestead property. Dated this 10 day of April, 2018. _ 'Marilyn Schuchma Aul-HENTICATION ACKNOWLEDGMENT s:Gnature(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF Washington Authenticated this day of , 2018, Personally came before me this 16" day of April. 2018, the above named Marilvn Schuchjnan, an unmarried per-son, m own to be the person who executed [h foregoing in rumens an ak o ddged the same. TITLE: MEMBER ST:1Tli BAR OF WISCONSIN _ 1' (if not, authorized by 3 706.06, Wis. Stats.) Notary Pu & Washington Cou ,v, MN. - _ My Commission is permanent (If not, state expiration date: THIS INST'RUMF.NI' W'A}I)RAFTED BY": 3t 11 Allison Lewis BEST & FLANAGAN LLP / 8910GET KAY OELONG 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 2700 I[. t WIAPy-.:CLIC Minneapolis, MN 55402 PA!NhES!;L', (612) 339-7121 MY -W-M s6;n W10s van. 31.2021 (Signatures may he authentiated or acknowledged. Roth arc not necessary.) '[:amts of ,rrsons sigr,mr in any capacity must he typed .,printed their sivnazm cs EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Part of Government Lot Two (2) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28) North, Range Twenty (20) West, Town of Troy, St. Croix County, Wisconsin, described as fol!ows, Commencing on West line of Section 24, North 01 degrees 36 minutes West 646.30 feet from West Quarter (W comer of said Section 24; thence North 89 degrees 41 minutes East 325.00 feet to place of beginning, thence North 05 degrees 44 minutes West 378 59 feet; thence North 56 degrees 46 minutes East 140 49 feet; thence South 05 degrees 05 minutes East 454.84 feet to the Northerly fine of Cove Road; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes West on said Northerly line 120.00 feet to place of beginning. Together with easement for access road 30 feet in width from Lake St. Croix to Cove Road as now opened and traveled. Subject to easement for access road 30 feet in width, the centerline being the Northerly line of above-described parcel. LTF Ventares, Inc. • Estimate 9251 1 HiL S;ree? East Prior Lake, MN 55372 Date Estimate No. (651) 452-0956 9/23/2018 2948 Dale Kaufman j 244 Cove Road Hudson, WI 56014 Plant Trees Water And Apply Root Stimulator After Planting • Warranty Included • Price Includes Installation Bur Oak 10 220.00 2,200.OOT #20 Container (Approximately 1 1/2" Diameter) White Oak 10 220.00 2,200.00T #20 Container (Approximately 1 112" Diameter) Norttrwood Red Maple 4 213.00 852.00T • #20 Container (Approximately 1 1/2" Diameter) Redmond Linden 10 210.00 2,100.007 #20 Container (Approximately 1 112' Diameter) I - Sales Tax (7.37516) s542.21 I CERTIFICATE OF SUR4PEY Surveyed for: Scale: I" = 50' A Iron monument found Dale Kaufman O 1" X 24 inch iron pipe set 244 Cove Road Hudson, WI 54016 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All that part of Section 24, T28N, R20W, being part of Government Lot 2, described as follows: Commencing on the West line of said Section 24, 646.30 feet North I degree 36 minutes West of the West Quarter Comer of said Section 24; thence North 89 degrees 41 minutes East 325.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence North 5 degrees 44 minutes West 378.59 feet, thence North 56 degrees 46 minutes Last 140.49 feet; thence South 5 degrees 05 minutes East 454.80 feet; thence West 120.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; being also part of Certified Survey Map as recorded in Volume 1, Page 9. Ti2D Y 7'ovyeN S~/~ "Nor IV BRADLEY J. CAHADAY i S-1482 RIVER FALLS WIS {o '0 SURJ"- ~I~18EMt1N~ Bradlew Canaday Surveying 6976 26' Street Court North Oakdale, MN 55128 Bradley-Canadaay 651-332-6890 Job No. 18-06 Keg. No. 1462 Date + • / -~-/~o'fo 0HvV/7 E/evG.fvn Fes' 7..13. ✓ ~='l y_~ -770 T` /2lv P \ \ ClaoIr~~ ~ra~ ' ♦ yo'/+ /2 7 yolk' r_5, zs' N/cib Lam- 5Cf6o..E l1 O N S°f,~i' B`/r9 i2o 4~0 Coves