07/25/2007 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• Federal Emergency Management Agency and the municipality regulates flood fringe activity (Paragraph 3(a)). Comments are invited as to whether such an exception, or a similar one, would properly balance respect for local land use interests with the flood protection, safety and habitat benefits of preserving floodplain. The rule also would align the easement requirement of Section 4 more closely with its floodplain preservation purposes. The present rule limits the width of the required flowage easement so that it many cases it will not encompass the entire protected floodplain. Under the proposed rule, the easement would need to encompass the floodplain. Further, presently minimum widths are prescribed for easements on Rice Creek, Hardwood Creek, Clearwater Creek, public ditches and major drainageways within the watershed (the last term defined in Rule A as "any drainageway having a tributary area of 200 acres or greater "). The basis for the particular widths specified is not clear. In the same way as is proposed for the stormwater rule (see above), the rule would be revised to require a minimum easement width only on public ditches, and set the minimum width at 33 feet each side of centerline. As explained above, the purpose of this minimum width is to remind property owners of the need to keep ditch right -of -way clear for maintenance access. Finally, the following minor changes would be made: • The policy statement (Section 1) would be refined. • The existing prohibition on the construction of hard surface within the designated groundwater recharge area of the Prairie du Chien Gordan formation would be continued (Paragraph 3(b)). However, the exception would be narrowed so that roads and trails, but not "other recreational improvements," would be permitted. • The authority of the RCWD to require soil borings as part of an application would be clarified (Paragraph 5(g)). • The encroachment created by riprap or other shoreline stabilization structures would not be treated as floodplain fill requiring replacement, provided the structure has been approved by the District (Section 6). The rule indicates that the District's approval will rest on its determination that the proposed structure addresses a real stabilization need, that it is structurally sound, that it is designed to encroach no further than necessary and that it will not adversely change hydraulic forces as they may affect other properties. The reason for this 16