My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 04/11/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2017
>
Agenda - Council - 04/11/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 3:31:41 PM
Creation date
4/10/2017 9:28:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
04/11/2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
754
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
Pearson Farm Residential Development EAW Draft—March XX,2017 <br /> Background <br /> Wetlands in and near the project area are generally regulated by the Lower Rum River Watershed <br /> Management Organization(LRRWMO),which administers the Minnesota Wetland Conservation <br /> Act(WCA)in the project area;the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(USACE),which administers <br /> Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act(CWA). The project area includes three delineated <br /> wetlands that are identified on Figure 6. <br /> Physical Effects and Alterations <br /> Construction of an emergency overflow from Wetland 2 is expected to result in physical effects that <br /> will eliminate the existing wetland hydrology of Wetland 3. Wetland 3 is a 1,738-square-foot Type <br /> 1 seasonally-flooded, farmed wetland that was dominated by stunted corn at the time of the wetland <br /> delineation. The proposed 1,738 square feet of wetland impact falls below the 2,500-square-foot de <br /> minimis exemption threshold,which applies to wetlands in a 50 to 80 percent area(e.g.,Anoka <br /> County)under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act"except for type 3, 4, 5, or 8 wetland or <br /> white cedar and tamarack wetland,outside of the shoreland wetland protection zone and inside the <br /> 11-county metropolitan area." (MN Rules 8420.0420, Subp. 8(2)(b). The proposed wetland impact <br /> also falls below the 5,000-square-foot wetland sequencing/compensatory mitigation threshold <br /> administered by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers under RGP-003-MN, General Condition 1. <br /> The other wetlands on the site will be avoided. LRRWMO Wetland Protection Standards will <br /> require establishment of native vegetation within a 16.5-foot-wide buffer strip around these <br /> wetlands. <br /> b) Other Surface Waters. Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water <br /> features (lakes, streams,ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches)such as draining, <br /> filling,permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant <br /> removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical <br /> modification of water features. Idents measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental <br /> effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are <br /> proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water <br /> features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water <br /> body, including current and projected watercraft usage. <br /> The proposed project is not expected to affect other surface water features such as lakes, streams, <br /> ponds,intermittent channels,or county/judicial ditches. The Mississippi River is located <br /> approximately 1,400 feet southwest of the project and will not be affected by the project. The site <br /> does not include other surface waters and the proposed project will not affect any MN DNR pubic <br /> waters. Although the National Hydrography Dataset shows a flowline running southeast through <br /> Wetlands 2 and 3, across the northeastern part of the site,this flowline was not observed in the field <br /> during the wetland delineation. Field investigation of this area found that it was dominated by corn <br /> with areas of green bulrush and intermittent inundation. The area did not include a drainage channel. <br /> 12. Contamination / Hazardous Materials /Wastes <br /> a. Pre project site conditions-Describe existing contamination orpotential environmental hazards on or in <br /> close proximity to the project site such as soil or groundwater contamination, abandoned dumps, closed <br /> 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.