Laserfiche WebLink
. T } <br /> . �. � <br /> Ms. B�arbara Walther . <br /> Mr. James Wisker <br /> Mr. John Smyth <br /> December 17, 2008 <br /> Page 3 � <br /> provided by creating 0.74 acres (32,411 SF) ofNew Wetland Credit(NWC) and 1.11 acres (48,387 <br /> . SF) of Public Value C�edit(PVC) in the form of upland buffer. _ <br /> PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACTS <br /> The proposed project includes one wetland impact, which encompasses approximately 0.59 acres <br /> (25,704 SF) of the project azea. Included in the proposed wetland impact area is an existing, non- <br /> permitted i.mpact,which involved 1,663 SF of the same wetland as the proposed impact. Per . <br /> communications with the MCWD,the non-permitted impact will require 4:1 mitigation. The <br /> remainder of the wetland impact area(24,041 SF)will be replaced at a 2.25:1 replacement ratio. The <br /> proposed impacts are due to the construction of a stormwater pond within an existing drainage ditch. <br /> The following provides a sumniary of the proposed wetland impact. <br /> Impact 1 <br /> Approximately 0.59 acre (25,704 SF) of impact is proposed to Wetland l. Wetland 1 was <br /> delineated as a Type 2 (PEMBd)drai.nage ditch/wetland,which exhibited approximately 3 to <br /> 6 inches of standi.ng water at the time of the wetland delineation site visit. Dominant <br /> vegetation of the drainage ditch/wetland includes reed canary grass, cattail,jewelweed,and <br /> 1'esser duckweed. Impact 1 is proposed due to the construction of a stormwater pond within <br /> the existing drainage ditch/wetland. Wetland impacts associated with Impact 1 will be <br /> replaced on-site at two separate locations. <br /> WETLAND IMPACT SEQUENCING <br /> � Alternatives Anal� � � <br /> � No Build Alternative <br /> According to the MNRAM assessment of the existing drainage ditch/Wetland 1 exhibits <br /> low to medium wetland functions and values.A no-build alternative would result in the <br /> applicant mai.ntaining the low to medium quality drainage ditch as it currently exists. The <br /> existing drainage ditch exhibits a dominance of invasive,non-native vegetation and steep <br /> sideslopes. Reed canary grass is the dominant vegetation species within the drainage ditch. <br /> Because of the thick dense cover esta.blished by the existing reed canary grass, other plant <br /> species have a slight poten�ial to become established, compete and survive in the current <br /> • environment. In addition to the dominance of reed canary grass,the sideslopes of the <br /> drainage ditch range between 2:1 and 3:1 along much of the ditch. The steep sideslopes are � <br /> causing material to slough into the drainage ditch and therefore allowing sediment to flow <br /> . . downstream and further degrading downstream waters. Finally, common practices of golf <br /> course management include the application of pesticides and fertilizers to establish and <br /> maintain a course that is desired by the membership. As most of these materials aze utilized <br />