Laserfiche WebLink
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act <br /> Technical Evaluation Panel Findings Report <br /> Date(s)of Site March 14`h, 2019 LGU: MCWD <br /> Visit/Meeting: <br /> County: Hennepin LGU Contact: Heidi Quinn <br /> Project Name: W19-01 North Shore Medows Phone#: 952-641-4504 <br /> Location of Project: 2265 North Shore Drive,Orono Email hquinn@minnehahacreek.org <br /> (attach map if possible) Address: <br /> TEP ATTENDEES: OTHER ATTENDEES: OTHER ATTENDEES: <br /> LGU:Heidi Quinn,MCWD Eric White,USACE <br /> SWCD:Stacey Lijewski, Melanie Curtis,City of Orono <br /> Hennepin County <br /> BWSR:Ben Carlson Jeremy Barnhart,City of Orono <br /> DNR: Travis Fristed,ISG <br /> PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE OF MEETING: <br /> The purpose of the meeting is to discuss proposed replacement plan to completely fill 958 sf of a Type 1,seasonally <br /> flooded wetland(Wetland E)to construct a sport court and future storage shed. Wetland E is within the shoreland <br /> wetland protection zone and outside of the building set-back zone. The Boundary and Type was approved Novemeber <br /> 14`h,2018(W18-38)and also identified Wetland E as a Mange 3 classifiaction. Wetland E is considered a Water of the <br /> US and is also regulated by the USACE. The DNR does not consider Wetland E as a Public Waters Wetland. <br /> TYPE OF MEETING:Check all applicable <br /> ® Office ❑ On-Site ® Phone Conference ❑ E-Mail ❑ Other: <br /> TEP FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1: <br /> The TEP discussed the alternatives site locations considered to avoid wetland impacts. The site is 69.56 acres in size and <br /> has eight wetlands onsite. The existing site condition is residential single family home with a managed,densely <br /> forested,sugar maple-basswood community. Per the replacement plan,the proposed location of the sport <br /> court/storage shed was chosen due to the lack of mature trees within the area and the proximity for access from the <br /> home. Under De Minimis,400 sf of impact would be allowed to Wetland E without requiring replacement. It was <br /> agreed that partially impacting the isolated wetland would result in loss of hydrology and function of the wetland and <br /> most likely result in an impact greater than 400 sf. <br /> The TEP further discussed if there was other upland areas to place the sport court/storage shed that would completely <br /> avoid wetland impacts given the acreage of upland onsite. It was expressed by ISG that the landowner wants to <br /> Minimize mature tree removal to the greatest extent and that the three alternatives considered would result in greater <br /> tree removal. <br /> The TEP further discussed the potential for a conservation easement or preservation declaration that would ensure <br /> perpetual preservation of upland mature trees and onsite mitigation under sequencing flexibility. <br /> It was the recommendation of the TEP to do an estimated tree survey for the areas where the alternatives were <br /> considered and the location of Wetland E to provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis to demonstrate if the upland <br /> areas provide a greater ecosystem function. A combination of banking,onsite mitigation at wetland A where there are <br /> 1 TEP Findings should be a meaningful concise summary detailing the project conditions,technical data,and what rules apply. <br /> The TEP recommendation should be clear,based on rule and best professional judgement. <br /> Rev. 12/17/2013 <br />