02-22-1994 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

coapli4fiC€ witti tbf t«<;u«ncin(} requir«Mntt tzom local,^^90V€CAMnt unit bmtocm prcpAcinq m r«pl4C««eat plan.Subp. 3. tVAluntion. At provided for In pact S420.32IO. ctchalcnl cpjtstlons cooctrning thm public value* Location* size* 4nd typ# of wetland ihall be subnitted to the tecbnical avalujtioa panel. ?.ne local ^overiment unit nay use a tecbnical evaluation panel to pcedeterm.ne pebllc value* location* slae* or type of wetlands under its jurisdiction and use this deterniaatfon ia adninistecine the act. Zetland boundaries euat be determined ustriq the methodoioqles in the federal Manual foe Identifying and Delineating JurIsdicttonal Wetlands (January 19d9). Wetland type aost be identified according to Cowardin# et al.* 1979* Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States and according to United States Pish and Wildlife Service Circular Mo. 39 (1971 edition) "Wetlands of che United States.* The technical evaluation panel shall provide its deteeminations to the local govecuaent unit for consideiac*.on. SAr KS s 14.OS; 103B.IQI; 1033.33S5 HIST: la SR 274 11420.0S20 saoonajwT^^ Subpact 1. Requirea^t. except for wetlands located in ^titltiwaaed ileXda thetace subject to subpart 8* and calcareous fens that are subject to subpart 9* the local governaeot unit . nay not consider or approve a wetland ceplaceaeot plan unless. the local governaent unit finds that the applicant has dcaonatrated that the activity iapacting a wetland has coaplled with ail of the following pcinciples in descending order or priority: A. avoids direct or indirect iapacts to the wetland that aay destroy or dlalnish the wetland under the criteria in subp.irt 3; a. ainiaizes the iapact to the wetland by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its ioplementat ion under the criteria in subpart 4: C. rectifies the impact by repairing* rehabilitating* restoring the affected wetland under the criteria in suoparc S: D. reduces or ciiminatts the impact to the wetland over time oy preservation and maiateaance operations urvicr the criteria in subpart 6; and E. replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetland oy restocing or creating substitute wetland areas having enuji or ^(«ater public value as provided for in pa*ti 0420.0S30 to 532? 2^30. 'iubp, 2. Afiplication options. An applicant may either SUOmtt the Information required for seque.nctng analysis as part ^be application for replacement plen approval or apply for a prelimrnmry aeqctncing determination from the local government unit before preparing a replacement plan. The local qo^mxrmmr unit may request adJitionaX information needed to make a determination, for pco}acte impacting wetland actaa lean than O.l acres the local government unit may provide an oit-site sequencing determination without wtittam documencatiom from th applicant; eicept for projects wtiich art located im wetlanda adjacent to amd within 1*000 feet of outstanding ceeomcce vale waters as defined in chapter 70SO: trout streams as designatec iQ Commissioner's Order Sumbec 2294; and trout lakes as designated in Commissioner's Order Sumbec 2230.Subp. J. DetermiaatioQ of impmet avoidmmoe. A. Avoidance must be required when indicated by part 8420.Q540* subpart 9. B. Vttland dependenct determination: (1| Based on information provided by tha applicant, the local government unit shall determine if the proposed project is wetland dependent. A project is wetland dependent if wetland features* functions* or values are essential to fulfill tbe basic purpose of the project. A wetland present at the site of a proposed project does not make that project wetland dependent. (2) A project that has been determined by the local government unit to be wetland dependent is eitmpt from th« analysis of avoidance alternatives in item C. C. Alternatives analysis: (1) The applicant shall provide tbe local* government unit with documentation describing at least two alternatives in addition to the proposed project* onm of wtiich may be the no-build alternative* that would avoid impacts to wetlands. The alternatives may include consideration of alternate sites or alternative project configurations on tb# proposed site. The alternatives must be judged by the local government unit as good faith efforts* or the local government unit may require the applicant to redraft them for cecensideration. (2) The local government unit shall determioe whether any feasible and prudent alteci^cives ace available tha* would avoid impacts to wetlands. An alternative shall be considered feasible and prudent if it is capable of being done troe an engineering point of view, is in accordance with accepted engineering standards and practices* is consistent wit* reasonable regulrtnents of the public health* safety* and welfare* is an environmentally preferable alternative based on a review of social* economic* and tnvIror.iientaL impacts* and woulc create no truly unusual problems. The local government ualt shall consider the following in evaluating alternatives 41 applicable: (a I whether the basic project purpose can be reasonably accomplished using one oc DOie other sites ill the same general acta that would avoid wetland impacts. A& \ 14o