Laserfiche WebLink
Technical— • o • = o <br /> Evaluation • • of Fact <br /> Date:6-22-12 LGU:Minnehaha Creek WD <br /> ' County:Hennepin/Carver LGU Contact:Catherhle Bach <br /> Project Name/4:W12-04 Phone 4:952-641-4504 <br /> Location of Project: NW SE 26 118N 23W <br /> ' '/a 1/4 '/, Sec. Twp. Range Lot/Block <br /> City:Orono County:Hennetwin <br /> TEP Members(and others)who reviewed project:(Cheek if viewed project site) <br /> ®LGU:Calherine Bach ®13WS11 ynda Peterson <br /> ' ❑SWCD:Stacey Lijewski ❑DNR(if applicable): <br /> Other Wetland Experts present: Jesse Struve.Cily of Orono <br /> TEP requested by:Catherine Bach <br /> ' 1. Type of TRP determination requested(check those that apply): <br /> Exemption(WCA Exemption# ) No-Loss <br /> Wetland Boundary and Type Replacement Plan <br /> ' X Sequencing <br /> 2. Description of Wetlands)with proposed impact: <br /> a.Wetland Type(Circular 39)_2(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 sequencing requn•enients been met'? Attach Sequencing Finding of Fact as supporting information. <br /> ®Yes ❑No(if no,list why): <br /> 4. Is the project consistent with the bitent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan,the <br /> metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater ntanagementplan,and local comprehensive <br /> plan and zoning ordnance? ❑Yes ❑No(if no,list why): <br /> ' 5, What is the net result of the project on the following wetland functions: <br /> Functions Detg ade Neutral Improve <br /> Floodwater Storage <br /> ' Nutrient Assimilation <br /> Sediment Entrapment <br /> Groundwater Recharge <br /> Low Flow Augmentation <br /> Aestlietics/Recreation <br /> Shoreland Anchorhtg <br /> Wildlife Habitat <br /> Fisheries Habitat <br /> Rare Plant/Animal Habitat <br /> Commercial Uses <br /> ' 6. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations,are Welland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? <br /> ❑Yes ❑No(if no,list why) <br /> T Does Technical Fvaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1? <br /> ' ®Yes ❑Yes,with Conditions ❑No(if no, list why): <br /> 8. List TEP findings to support reconunendation in question 7 above.(Please attach document ifnecessary).T he 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&functions titan the proposed impact sites. <br /> 9. SIGNATURES f�r•ecorrlrnendatiorr is mol a corrsens4BWcVre <br /> SWC resen ' e (D lesenlative ate) <br /> f <br /> t LQ cprescalative <br /> (E ate) DNR Representative (Date) <br /> Page 1 of 1 <br /> ' Spring Hill Sequencing TEP FOF (August 2007) <br />