My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
07/07/87
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Planning and Zoning
>
Agendas
>
1980's
>
1987
>
07/07/87
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/22/2025 8:47:20 AM
Creation date
6/14/2004 8:55:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Document Title
Planning and Zoning Commission
Document Date
07/07/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
191
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Continued from page 5 <br /> COMMUNITY PROBATION: FEMA has recently de- <br />veloped a new sanction program whereby communities can <br />be penalized for improper ordinance administration short of <br />a community's suspension from the NFIP. This new pro- <br />gram is called 'community probation', and can be imple- <br />mented when a community has failed to correct identified <br />deficiencies within a reasonable period of time. During a <br />probation period, flood insurance polities could continue to <br />be purchased or renewed but all such pollcics community- <br />wide would be subject lo a $25 surcharge or penalty. <br /> COMMUNITY SUSPENSION: Full community sus- <br />pension from thc NFIP remains an option to FEMA should <br />deficiencies not be corrected satisfactorily during the pro- <br />bation period. This is similar to the denial of flood insur- <br />ance discussed above (Section 1316), except it applies <br />community-wide. <br /> <br /> The above-noted ramifications of improper ordinance <br />administration arc presented here not as threats but as a <br />reminder of the facts of life should a violation occur. The <br />obvious way to avoid these sanctions is for local officials to <br />understand their flood plain ordinance and administer it <br />responsibly. <br />Editor's Note: Tom Lutgen Is a Hydrologist III with 13 <br /> years of experience with the DNIL, DOW. Specializing <br /> in flood plain management, Tom Is Minnesota's pri- <br /> mary contact person with regards to FEMA and the <br /> National Flood Insurance Program. Before taking on <br /> his present role seven years ago, Tom spent six years <br /> in the New Ulm and Metro Regional Offices as a staff <br /> hydrologist. <br /> <br />Cottonwood River Gets A Facelift <br /> <br />By Skip Wright <br /> <br /> What do you do with a snag ridden, log-jammed crod- <br />lng river? One that's aggravating floods, blocking naviga- <br />tion and has its banks slumping in. <br /> Traditionally, you channelize it, jerk the snags out and <br />pile them on the bank or do nothing at all. All have adverse <br />consequences. A relatively new method of river restoration <br />is being experimented with on the Cottonwood River near <br />New Ulna. Its called the 'Palmiter Method'. Remember it, <br />because you're bound to hear thc name more in the future. <br /> <br /> Traditional methods of resoMng channel maintenance <br />and streambank erosion problems include riprapping, <br />dredging and channelization. Not only can this approach bc <br />cost prohibitive, costing $10,000 to $50,000 per mile, but <br />may also have adverse environmental impacts including, but <br />not limited to: lost stream habitat and diversit)q additional <br />erosion; increased downstream flooding; destruction of <br />Continued on page 7 <br /> <br /> "...Its called the Palmiter Method, Remem- <br />ber it, because you're bound to hear the name <br />more in the future .... " <br /> <br /> Thanks to a local-state joint effort, about 40 miles of <br />the'Cottonwood drainage system have been successfully <br />treated by the Palmiter method to date. The work is being <br />done by the Redwood-Cottonwood River Control Area <br />(RCRCA). The RCRCA is a joint powers board with repre- <br />sentation from eight counties - Lincoln, Lyon, Redwood, <br />Yellow Medicine, Pipestone, Murray, Cottonwood and <br />Brown Counties. About $50,000 of the $100,000 project has <br />been expended to date, roughly $1,300 per river mile. The <br />RCRCA and the State Soil and Water Conservation Board <br />have each funded 25 percent of the cost. DNrR, F'zshcries <br />Section is providing the remaining 50 percent of the cost <br />using RIM (Reinvest in Minnesota) monies. <br /> In general, the Palmiter Method involves, 1) clearing <br />the channel of log jams which are causing erosion or <br />cant obstruction to flow, 2) the strategic anchoring of brush <br />piles and tree tops to protect eroded banks, and 3) estab- <br />lishing vegetation on riverbanks protected with tree tops. <br />The advantages of this method are its relatively low cost and <br />minimum disturbance to the ecology of the waterway. <br />Proper application of the technique requires a planning <br />effort which includes input from fisheries biologists, hydrol- <br />oglsts, soll conservation experts, landowners and con- <br />tractors. You attack the weaknesses of the river and respect <br />its strengths. That's why a multi-disciplinary approach is <br />needed. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />Thls Is how application of the Palmlter Method looks In the fielc <br />After the trees are secured to the bank with cable~., an attempt <br />be made to grade back the eroded bank and re-establish natur~ <br />vegetation. (Photo #10) <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.