Laserfiche WebLink
� • � <br /> �. l <br /> � � � � � � � <br /> � � � � <br /> Date:6-22-12 LGU:Minneheha Crcek WD <br /> County:Henne�i�/Carver LGU Contect:Catherine Bach <br /> Project Namo/#: vV 12-Q4 Phone#:952-641-4504 <br /> Location of Project: I�v _ �SE 26 118N 23 W � <br /> %, '/+ %. Sec. 'I`uvp. Ranga LotBlock <br /> City: no County:Hennopin <br /> TEP Members(and others)who reviewed project:(Check if vtewed proj�ct site) <br /> �LGU:Catharine Bach �BWSR:Lvnda Peterson <br /> ❑SWCD:StaceX Lijewsla ❑DNR(if applicabk): <br /> Other Wetland Experts present:Jesse Struve.Citv of Orono , <br /> TEP requested by:Catherine Bach <br /> 1. Type of TEP determination requested(check those that apply): <br /> Exemption(WCA Exemption#_� NaLoss <br /> Wetland Boundary and Type Replacement Plan <br /> X Sequencing <br /> 2. Description of Wetland{s)with proposed impact: <br /> a.Wetland Type(Circular 39),�(Cowardin)PEMC Wetland Plant Community Type'Shallow Marsh <br /> b.Wetland Size 6.52 ac c.Size of Proposed Impact(acres and square feet)To be determined <br /> 3. � Have uencing re uirements been met? Attach Sequencing Finding of Fact as supporting information. <br /> � �Yes �No(if no,list why): <br /> 4. Ts the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan,the <br /> metropolitan surface water maYa ement lan and metropolitan goundwater managament plan,and local comprehensive <br /> plan and zoning ordinance? [�Yes �]No(if no,list why): <br /> 5. What is the net result of the project on the following wetland functions: <br /> F�tnerions e de N�e � �rnove � <br /> Floodwater Storage <br /> Nutriant Assimilation � <br /> Sediment Entrapment <br /> � Groundwater Recharge <br /> Low Flow Augmentation <br /> Aesthetics/Recreation <br /> Shoreland Anchoring <br /> Wildlife Habitat <br /> Fisheries Habitat <br /> � Rare P1andAnimal Habitat <br /> Commercial Uses <br /> 6. For replacement plan or naloss determinations,are wetland funcdons maintained at an eqtu�l or greater level?� <br /> ❑Yes ❑No(if no,list why) <br /> 7_ Doas Technicel Evaluation Panel recommend a roval of the activity proposed in item 1? <br /> �Yes ❑Yas,with Conditions �No(if no,list why): <br /> 8. List TEP findings to support recommendation in quostion 7 above.(Please attach documeentt if necessary).The applicant <br /> has minimized the proposed impacts by reducing the impacts originally proposed to both the north and south impact areas. The <br /> applicant has also submitted functional assessments using the MnRAM for the proposed impact sites as well as the proposed <br /> replacement sites. The replacement sites had higher quality values dt functions than the proposed impact sites. <br /> 9. ,�NATIJRES((J'TEP recom�nendallon is no!a consensus, ole tiv�l an as�rlsk nd lafn on lhe back of thfaPQBe) <br /> � <br /> . W�!' lJ���� � <br /> Sw ) B xepr�aativo te) <br /> � <br /> L(3 tative ) DNR Repnseotative N�te) <br /> Page 1 of 1 • <br /> Spring Hill Sequeacing TEP FOF (August 200� <br />