03-14-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COvpliAticc t:it MqvMCtnf r«qtiirMefitt tzom tri4 localjlovVcfiMnt unit b«for« pr«pacifiq a raplacanent plan.Sttbp. 3. Ivaliiatioa. At provided for in pact §120.0210, ctchaical quastiofia cooctrnia^ thm public value, location, t ce« and* type ot wetland shall be tubaitted to the technical evaluation panel. T.ne local ^ovemaent unit nay use a tecimical evaluation panel to pcedettna.ne public value* location, site, cr type ot wetlanda under its jurisdiction and use this deteruinatLon in edntfiistec 109 the act. Jutland boundaries uuat be detecniocd usio9 the netliodolo9ies in the federal Manual for Identifying and Delineatinq Jurisdicclocal Wetlands (January 19§9)« Wetland type oust be ideotiCied accordin9 to Cowacdln# et al., 1979, Classif i *ation of Wetlands and Oeepwatec Habitats of the United States and accoxdln9 to Onlted States Pish and Wildlife Service Circular Mo. 39 (1971 edition) -Wetlands of the United States.* The technical evaluation panel snail provide Its deterainat 10ns to the local povernuent unit for considesacvon. Sh.* HS S 14.06; IdJB.lQl; 1033.33SS BIST: IB SR 374 •420.0S20 saQaBBawT"^ Subpact 1. Bequireayit. Baccpt for wetlands located 10 teed fields ihut^ce subject to subpart §, and calcareous fees that are subject to tubpart 9, the local 90v€cnaefit unit . nay 00. consider or approve a wetland replactuent plan unless, the local fovemaefit unit finds that the applicant has deaoajtrattd that the activity iapactinq a wetland has coaplied with all of the followin9 principles in descendio9 order or priority I A. avoids direct or indirect iapacts to the wetland that aay destroy or dialn»sh the wetland under the criteria In subpact 3; B. niniuizes the inpact to the wetlano by liaitinq the de9ree or aaqnitude of the wetland activity and its iepleatnta:ion under the criteria m subpaxt 4: C. .rectifies the iapact ty repaicinq, cehabiLitaimg, or restoring the affected wetland under the criteria in suopart 5: 0. reduces or eiiaioatts the iapact to the wetland over tiae oy preservation and maintenance operations ur^icr the criteria in subpart 4; and C, replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetia.nd oy restoring or creating substitute wetland areas having agual or greater public value as provided for in parts 0430.0S3D to 8430.0430. Subp. 2. Application options. An applicant nay either subait the lnfo:uaticn required for sequencing analysis as part of the application for replactsenc plax approval or apply for a prtlia*(iary sequencing dctecalnation fron the Local governaent unit before preparing a replaceaent plan, the local gevernae.* unit aay request adJitional infocaatiOM seeled to aaie a deteralnaltofi. for pcojects iapacting wet2 and areas leia than 0.1 acres the local gaversaenl unit aay peovlde as oa-slte sequencing deteraiaatiofi vitliout wtltiea docuaentat ii\s tro« tr applicant; eicept Cor projects %dilcb are located in ^tlands adjacent to aad within l.OOO feet of outstardiag re^ouxee vaU waters as defined in chapter 7058; trout streaaa as defin.iatec in CQHiissionec*s Order Suaber 3294; aad trout tales as designated in Coaaisslonec*s Order miabec 2230. Subp. 1. Deteraluation of iapact avoidauoe. A. Avoidance aust be required when indicated by part •420.QS40, swbpart 9. 1. Wetland dependence deteraination: (1) Based on iafocaation provided by the applicant, the local governaent unit shall determine if the proposed project is wetland dependent. A project is wetland dependent if wetland features# functions, or values are tssentUl to fulfill the basic purpose of the project. A wetland present at tha site of a proposed project does not aake that project wetland dependent. (2) A project that has been dettcuined by the local goveraoent unit to be wetland dependent is eiempt froo 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 additioo .0 tbe proposed project# one of wbicb may be the no-build alternative, that would avoid impacts to wetlands. The alternatives may include consideration of alternate sites or aiteraatlve project configurations on tbe 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 recensideration. (2] The local government unit shall detarmioe whether any feasible and prudent altccaacivcs are available tha* would avoid impacts to wetlands. An alecrnallve shall be considered feasible and prudent if it is capable of being done from an engineering point of view, is In accordance with accepted engioeecing standards and practices, ;s consistent wir reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare. Is an environmentally preferable alternative based on 4 review of social, economic, and environmental impacts, and woulc create no truly unusual problems. The local government unit shall consider the following in evaluating alteinatives as applicable: (a) whether the basic project purpose cam oe reasonably accomplished using one or more other sites in thm ^ same general area that would avoid wetland impacts. Am