My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-09-2010 Council Work Session Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2010
>
02-09-2010 Council Work Session Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/3/2019 10:29:12 AM
Creation date
7/9/2015 12:40:08 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
169
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
t � <br /> James Wisker <br /> Planner/Program Coordinator <br /> Minnehaha Creek Watershed District <br /> 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard <br /> Deephaven, MN 55391 <br /> M r. W isker, <br /> Thank you for the opportunity to review the MCWO Rule D draft. We offer the <br /> following comments for your consideratfon: <br /> Section 3. (a) (2), Mitigatfon -The definition of"subwatershed"in the rules <br /> needs to be better defined. The rules are not clear as to the subwatershed <br /> levei where mftigation needs to occur, In any event, Three Rivers Park <br /> Distrlct believes that the rules need to have some flexibility to allow <br /> appilcants to locate mitigation sites where the opportunity to create <br /> sustainable and functional wetlands is optimized. Forcing mitigatlan onto <br /> margfnal locations in the impacted subwatershed may limit the ability of the <br /> replacement wetlands to function as an integrated cornponent of the larger <br /> hydrologic system. <br /> Section 3. (b) (2) Mitigation - Three Rivers Park �istrict supports the cancept <br /> of requiring mitfgation in the area where Impact occurs. Nevertheless, there <br /> may be instances where the overal) hydralogic system could be improved <br /> more by constructing a high quality wetland outside of the MCWD boundaries, <br /> than by forcing mitigation onto a poor site wlthin the watershed. The rules <br /> should allow the opportunity to pursue such an optfon without the penalty of <br /> signlficantly increasing the size, and therefore the cost, of the mitigation. <br /> Including a variance or waiver procedure in the rules may provlde this <br /> flexlbl l ity. <br /> Section 3. {c) Mltigation - Three Rivers Park District recommends that this <br /> section speciflcally include a statement that excavation performed by a public <br /> entity for the purpose of controlling invasive species (such as reed canary <br /> grass, hybrid cattails, or phragmites) in wetlands be deemed self-replacing, <br /> It is difficult ta determine if replacernent of these species with a nat'rve <br /> species mix wil� change the MNRAM score enough to comply wfth the rule as <br /> currently drafted. The Park Distrlct Is considering wetland excavation as an <br /> option to attempt wetland restoratlon in Carver Park Reserve. <br /> Section b. (a) Wetland Buffer Vegetation - Three Rivers Park District supports <br /> the concept of establishing native vegetatlon in buffer areas. The Park <br /> District landscape policy requires forest, wetland and grassland planting to <br /> utilize native species. When buffers are established over disturbed area, and <br /> new vegetation must be planted, we agree that native species should be <br /> used. However, when existing, undisturbed natural areas are subsequently <br /> designated and recorded as buffers, Three Rivers Park Distrlct believes that <br /> the existing vegetation should be allowed to remafn even if It consist of <br /> predominantfy non-native species. <br /> Many areas around existing wetlands in Carver Park Reserve, Lake <br /> Minnetanka Regional Park, and Baker Park Reserve have invasive species <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.