Laserfiche WebLink
763.286.2429 I hfrees@outdoorexcapes.com I www.outdoorexcapes.com <br /> Outdoor Excapes 12345 Daniels Street I Long Lake, MN 55356 <br /> "The bitterness of poor workmanship remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten." <br /> On Aug 25, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Heidi Quinn <hquinn@minnehahacreek.org>wrote: <br /> Hi Hans, <br /> I apologize in the delay in getting back to you regarding your current MCWD application for a pool and <br /> driveway at the above referenced property. I have been in and out of the office all week,and as you are <br /> aware,we are a little short staffed. I just tried your cell, however,your mailbox is full. <br /> Please be reminded that MCWD has 15 business to review permit applications,while we strive to turn <br /> around applications in a shorter timeline, it often is not possible during the "busy" season. Your <br /> application for erosion control was received on August 7th, 2017. The plans currently show a proposed <br /> pool and new proposed driveway. There is no proposed erosion control downgradient of the proposed <br /> driveway,or indication of what the construction entrance will be one the drive is removed,therefore <br /> the permit application is incomplete. <br /> Additionally, I was onsite last week to check out the vegetation is wetland 1 that was recently <br /> reseeded. The vegetation looks good. Without having an as-built survey, I am unable to determine if <br /> the original contours were restored and if all the fill was removed,currently there are some areas where <br /> gravel is present. As environmental systems take some time to react to changes,this wetland will be a <br /> site that MCWD continues to inspect for functionality. I would also like to discuss what your plan for <br /> removing the fill that was brought into wetland 2. Back in June it was discussed and sent in writing that <br /> you would work with a wetland specialist on a "restoration plan", if the restoration plan was not to be <br /> pursued,then the fill that was brought into wetland 2 would be removed. <br /> Furthermore, impacts that do not qualify as no-loss or exemption criteria within the Wetland <br /> Conservation Act(WCA) would constitute as an impact requiring mitigation/replacement through WCA <br /> in addition to triggering the MCWD wetland protection rule, which would require wetland buffers to be <br /> declared to the property. Both wetland 1 and wetland 2 appear to be within 150'of the proposed pool <br /> and driveway, which I believe will trigger the City requirement of an up to date delineation. Working <br /> with a wetland specialist will provide you a clear path forward on if the sediment removal into wetland 1 <br /> was successful and how to appropriately remove (quantity and method)the sediment that was brought <br /> into wetland 2. <br /> I would like to discuss your timeline and plan for addressing the sediment/fill in wetland 2. If you do not <br /> want to pursue working with a wetland specialist, I will call a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP)to meet <br /> onsite which will include representatives from MCWD,the City,the DNR, and Board of Soil and Water <br /> Resources(BWSR) and possibly the Army Corps. The purpose of the TEP would be to develop an action <br /> plan and then issue a restoration order which is handled through the DNR. <br /> 2 <br />