Laserfiche WebLink
evaluation. . We would prefer, however, that thewet1a.. d be evaluated ba ed <br /> ou salt+tiny habitat types rat:er than on he Nat onal'Wetiaeo n�ds Inventory <br /> CVAlt-511' K. <br /> Map. I believe that existing conditions Types 2, 3 and 6 wetlands; <br /> and ptnwescd conditions will likely result in Types 2, 3 and 3 wetlands . <br /> The characteristics of each wetland type are described in the M4DOT <br /> doer*,•-t t <br /> • <br /> _'"ANDARD: 4. Cleein fill must be used. <br /> • <br /> COMPL:=s.MCr $TA'r .SS: .Applicant proposes use of fill available on-site. <br /> STANAPpP: 5. Shall minimize impacts to vegetation. <br /> COM?LIA.Ncx `.3'_','ATUS: See Standard 7. <br /> STANDARD: b. Shatl not adversely alter water flow characteristics . <br /> 110 COMPJ,,IAN"7' STATUS: <br /> : <br /> S^r.NDARD: 7 . Shall minimize the size of the .t»edd area. <br /> COMPLIANCE STATUS: A general standard of alteration is establishment that the <br /> a;teration is the minimum necessary. vegetation disturbance is addressed <br /> specifically by Standard 5. Standard 7 is a catch-all (filling, dredging, <br /> etc. ) for all types of alteration. <br /> I believe that the applicant has made a good faith effort to minimize <br /> disturbance, to the extent possible for this development configuration, <br /> within the constraints of the Ordinance. The filling appears related to <br /> creation of desirable lots and the dredging appears to be• related to <br /> replacement of stornwate_ storage wildlife habitat .141-1414a4 and water <br /> ri,tal.l.y enhauvuuu at. valuta. <br /> Barr's assessment of the extent of disturbance raised two questions. `'hese <br /> .1 <br /> questions were in regard to the need for filling <br />