Minutes from 1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes May 20, 1992 Page 5 Schrantz stated County Ditch Number Six is a major ditch in Andover. Mr. Fischer indicated this project has been submitted to the Corps of Engineers for a permit. This is not a DNR protected wetland. It was his opinion that because this involved less than two acres of wetland the Pollution Control Agency would not get involved. Approximately 0.16 acre of wetland would be affected. Mr. Fischer indicated the county requires comments /approval from only the Corps of Engineers and the LRRWMO. Mr. Fischer went on to explain that any culvert replacement will require a diversion channel during construction, which will stay pretty much within the limits of the fill area. In relation to the overall county maintenance projects in the future, Erickson queried how many areas within the LRRTRMO will the county be affecting. Mr. Fischer indicated it will be approximately five per year. Jankowski queried when the road is eventually constructed, how much wetland will be impacted. Mr. Fischer stated probably no more; this culvert will probably be the only thing affecting it. He reiterated the county's immediate concern is obtaining approval for this project; however, it is also looking toward similar future projects and the LRRWMO's position on mitigation. Schultz queried whether this process will require the LRRWMO to expend its finances in any way. Schrantz felt that yes, there will be the need for a review process requiring the submission of a permit application and $500 fee to cover LRRTRZ costs. Mr. Fischer indicated the Corps of Engineers has exempt roadway maintenance projects from the permitting process. In the case of the LRRWMO, it will be nearly impossible to eliminate some impact on wetlands during a construction project, no matter how small. Mr. Fischer suggested the LRRWMO wait until there is a significant amount of mitigation to deal with from a future project(s) and tack this 0.16 acre mitigation project on to that. Schultz queried whether a developer could come to the LRRWMO and use the same argument; should the LRRTRMO treat the county any differently than it treats a developer. Mr. Fischer indicated Anoka County will be a regular customer. Mr. Newman suggested the LRRWMO require the county to provide adequate assurances that these small pieces of mitigated wetlands will be replaced, perhaps through a letter of credit, bonding, or in some other way.