Laserfiche WebLink
i � <br /> The Bancor Gconp, Inc. <br /> �.' <br /> � <br /> October 14,2W9 t.l. � �v �1 ' <br /> Minnehaha Cret�k Watershed District �� <br /> i8�02 Minnetonka Blvd. ��` 4 'j� <br /> Deephaven:,1VIN, b5391 <br /> R.e� Rules D <br /> Dear Menagers: - <br /> I am wr.iting as a memher.of the R.ulemeidng Citizen Task For.ce. The following are my <br /> camments for your consideration on the�rogosed changes to Rule D. <br /> I have nutueraas concern�about the propo�ed rule. T wi.11.txy tc�addr.ess i;hem in the order <br /> i;hey are addressed in:the Statement of Need and Rea�onableness. <br /> 2�ggulatorv Scaue{page 5) <br /> Z cone,ur in tha comment�p.rcrvided by Mr.T�exek Asche. For.numerous and obviouH reasans <br /> thore should be a de minimis exception. <br /> �ation—SiLine and Size of RQ�laceYuaut Wetlands �nage 5) <br /> 'S'here was little or no discuasion about this by Che Ruiemaking Citizen Task Farce. In facl:it <br /> is my understanding that f;his was addedby the Board otManagers efter the Citizan Task <br /> Force complet;�d its discussion. Consequently, to the best of.my knowiedge we.had no <br /> di»cus�ion about Che replacement ratios cantained in Lha proposed rule. My concerns are� <br /> . I am at a loss to understand the xepl�cement ratios contained in section 3 Q>). Yov <br /> already have ths language in sectiun 3(a)that provides the�rder of where <br /> replacement musC occur. I am�ssuming that for the$�ard to approve re�)acement <br /> t�f£site, Lhe applicant would need to shnw why replacement credits from laeataons <br /> with higher prioritiaa i�not gracticaL �or example if an applicant hae satis�ed the <br /> Board that it is impracticai Lo utiiize rep3acement credits from within the sub- <br /> wal;erahed, then what is�ccompliahed by reyuiring that a greater number af credi�,s <br /> neecl to be purchased than i£the replacement cradit�were lce�zted in the sub- <br /> water.yhed? nn its face thi�appears ta�e purely pun'z.tive. Quit,c frankly a cynic <br /> mighi;think the only reAson for this is to give applicantA greeter incenl;ive to <br /> purcl�ase erndits fram the Watershed's w.etland credit bank. <br /> • ,Aiong a�imilar line I do not believ�our cornmitUee ever diecussed whether the <br /> replacement ratio should be doubled for Pr�erve or'I�pee 1 or 2 wetlands. Again <br /> this xppears to be pu�ely puni�ive. I am not aware of any evidenco th�t tttis type of <br /> increase.is dir.ec�ly related to the loss of Lhat particulax type af wetland. Again I <br /> assume tlial;to get the initisl.permit t;o fill the wet}and the sequencing prcx:ess need� <br /> to be followed so the applicant has demonetratid.that the impbct is urtavoidable. I <br /> am at a loss to undersi;and whq if a Type 1 wetland is impaci;ed,the replacement <br /> ratio i.4 250%as oppt�sed t0 125%for cred.its located in the watershed andt upward of <br /> 80U'�if out;ride of the metropolitan areA_ 1 would like to see some scientific evidencQ <br /> to�upport this requirement <br /> ].=i2 i 94rh L,1nc N.!?,. �uf�ers—t0}�,P 6) <br /> T believe that the et;uilie�prcavided 1:o the committee were anything but confusing. The <br /> Mtnnc:.�p���i�, M��z�,�s�,z;, �r.imary report relied upc�n by the committee was a literature review conduct;ed b,y EOR. <br /> ������ F'ew if anp of us ori th�committee hAve the pro�essional ex�ertise to review these�tudies <br /> oursel�es so consequently wo n�r,ded tc�rely upan the summ�.ry pravidnd by FOR. In <br /> reviewing�tieir stud,y, the re�cornmend.at;ions for buffer width seemed to r�ng�,all nver. I <br /> ph��,�7C3 792397f <br /> fax 763 7r12-897t� <br />