Minutes from 1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes June 17, 1992 Page 9 minimal changes or losses to wetlands. Jankowski stated he would rather the board allow the county to bank these small areas rather than require a mitigation plan for every project that comes in.. Schrantz noted that the information provided from Pearson indicates the guidelines for banking are very complicated. This board should probably continue doing what it has been doing. Jankowski added while the idea of banking is reasonable, he is not quite sure how complex the implemen- tation would be. Schultz stated this board's first concern should be water quality. Schrantz indicated the information received says we must consider the size of the wetland, not the size of the damage. Schultz noted that Pearson's letter, page two, talks about the entire wetland, not just the amount being disturbed. Discussions continued on the various situations which might arise and how the LRRWMO should deal with them or if the LRRWMO should be reviewing certain activities at all. Erickson suggested the board should look at each project on a case by case basis to determine whether or not it should send the project on to its Consulting Engineer for review or make the determination itself. Schrantz indicated on county projects, if the Corps of Engineers and the DNR looks at the project and it meets with their approval, that would satisfy him. However, the affected wetland might not be within the jurisdiction of either of those agencies. Schrantz stated, in those cases, he liked the idea whereby the county would be allowed to bank these small sized wetland losses. Then, once the losses have accumulated to one acre, said acreage will then have to be mitigated to whatever the standards are at the time at the quality level of the wetlands when they were disturbed. The Administrative Secretary was directed to draft a letter to Anoka County, as well as put together an LRRWMO policy, addressing the board's position on this issue.