HomeMy WebLinkAboutfrom MCWD re permit application � _ _
Lyle c5man -Tom Cullum.doc _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Pa9e 1 ''
_ _ ___ _ _ - — - - - - �
I
II
i
;
I'
;
i
�
August 13, 2003 ,
Tom Cullum
785 Ferndale Road
Orono, MN 55391
RE: MCWD permit application 02-433
Dear Mc Cullum,
Upon review of the status of your permit application for a Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District Permit(MCWD) and Wetland Conservation Act no loss exemption
request, MCWD has identified two options to proceed. The second option requires
approval by the MCWD Board of Managers. Applications must be complete a
minimum of 21 days before the board meeting at which they will be addressed. Permit
applications are addressed at the Board of managers meetings on the 2"d and 4'h
Thursdays of the month. Options identified by MCWD are as follows: '
1.) Eliminate any fill beyond a de m_ inimis amount of 400 sq. feet and eliminate the '
proposed expansion of the wetland area. In this case MCWD Rules will not apply if ,
you are disturbing less then 5,000 square feet or 50 cubic yards of soil. '
2.) Complete the existing application by submitting the following information:
Rule A:
• Submit approval by the municipal planning commission or a written statement '
from the responsible municipal official that the project meets municipal
approval requirements '
• Submit mailing labels from Hennepin County for all properties 600 feet from '
the subject parcel for pubiic notification of Board meeting at which the ',
application will be heard
• $10.00 Appiication Fee '
Rule B: Erosion Control '
• Submit a site plan for existing and proposed conditions containing the
following information:
o Contours sufficient to show drainage on and adjacent to the site
o Site property lines '
o Proposed grading and land disturbing activities '
o Locations of buildings on the site
o Location and description of proposed erosion prevention and
temporary and permanent soil stabilization measures
Rule D:Wetland Protection ',
• Provide a wetland buffer 25 feet in width (3.39 acre wetland) ',
• Demonstrate a no net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of '
the wetland through an existing and proposed Function and Value '
assessment '
In Accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act:
• A Technical Evaluation Panel concluded that the project did not qualify for a no
loss exemption under 8420.0220. The TEP's recommendation was that a
more comprehensive restoration plan involving the re-establishment of '
� II
i
_. —_ ____�_.�,�._ _._ __ _ ___- _ ,,.�.____�����m�-�. _�_. _,.__.. .� _.J
� _ _
Lyle dman -Tom Cullum.doc Page 2
_ - -- -- I
historical wetland conditions may qualify for the requested exemption. The '
options to comply with the Wetland Conservation Act with impacts that do not
quality for a de minimis exemption are as follows:
1. Rescind the no loss application and provide sequencing and a replacement plan
2. Technical Evaluation Panel could reconvene and make recommendations for
what type of restoration would quality for a no loss exemption. ,
As we review your submittals,we may fine the need to request additional information,
and will so inform you. If you have any questions please call me at 952 471-0590. '
Sincerely, ',
Renae Clark '
District Technician
C: City of Orono
I
I
(.
�.
p
w
I,
;
,
; �
I
i
i
;
; ;
� i
I
I
�
i
Iio
i
�
�
, i
i