Agenda Packets - 1983/10/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RAMSEY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT MINNESOTA I `—) SOIL ANo WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS October 19, 1983 To: Supervisors of Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District From: Tom Petersen, Conservation Specialist�� Subject: Request by the City of Mounds View to review wetland data specific to the proposed Miller Industrial Park. The following is a brief history of District involvement with the proposed development. In July of 1980, the District forwarded a site plan review of the proposed Miller Industrial Park to the Rice Creek Watershed District. The report listed soils information and suggested erosion and sediment control measures. During the summer of 1980, the District supervised a wetland survey as requested by the City which culminated in the development of a water resources map which was printed in August of 1980. The District also produced a 1.5ounds View Wetland Inventory Document which contained wetland data sheets and a general discussion of wetlands and their potentials in urban areas. This latter document was printed in December of 1981. Since the release of the aforementioned document, the City has developed a wetlands protection ordinance utilizing, the District information as supporting data. As the attached letter indicates, the City has requested that the District comment on the Barr Report as prepared for Mr. Miller and a report prepared by Braun 1:nvironmental Laboratories for the City (see the attached reports). These reports suggest that the District's original mapping of wetlands in the Miller Industrial Park area may not accurately reflect site specific wetland boW dories. Mr. Miller proposes as indicated on his phase development maps (see Barr Report) to significantly alter wetland 1-22 and to a lesser extent wetland 1-23. It is my understanding that the Mounds View Wetland Ordinance provides for this through the wetland modification permit process. However, Mr. Miller contends that wetland 1-22 is in a transitional state, and, therefore, questions the integrity of its wetland status. Also a more detailed site specific evaluation of wetland 1-23 has revealed that there are inclusions of upland or transitional habitat within the area originally mapped as wetland 1-23 by the District. In light of this fact, it is WD' understanding that Mr. Miller has petitioned for a change in the official wetland map to exclude wetland 1-22 and portions of 1-23 from wetland development restrictions as provided for in the City ordinance. The official wetland map is a rendition of the District's data with the exception that the exterior boundaries have been assigned to an elevation. AN EQUAL 01'P ORTUNITY EMPLOYER