Agenda Packets - 1983/11/28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor and City Council Page Three November 23, 1983 Two letters were received from Ramsey Soil and Dater Conservation District, one dated October. 19, 1983 from Tom Peterson, Consorvation Specialist and one dated October 20, 1983 from Dr. Russell Adams, Chairman of Plat Review Committee for the Conservation District. The following excerpts were taken from those letters: 1. "Raving been party to the development of the Barr Reports proposed wetland boundaries, I concur with both consultants findings that there are areas of upland habitat, and that: there are areas in the transition -phase within the area mapped as wetland 1-23 by the District." 2. "My personal observations also shed some doubt as to the accuracy of the soil survey on portions of this site." 3. "Our original wetland inventory specified that these data are general in nature and that site specific data may still be in order. Thus, the Engineering Reports were in keeping with our reconunendations, and we concur with their findings." 4. "Second, earlier data and data in the Engineering Reports suggest that the organic soil indeed may not be Seelyeville snuck as shown in the Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey. This would make a difference in our recommendation. 5. "Finally, there is probably little question that upland habitat is becoming established because of long-term drainage by judicial ditch No. 1. The following excerpts were taken from a letter dated October 31, 1983 submitted by Braun Environmental Laboratories to questions and/ or clarifications requested by the City of Mounds View: 1. "This area (1-22) has vegetation typical of a wetland and therefore falls within the definition used to classify wetland areas. However, this area does not function as a typical wetland." 2. "Because of the limitation placed on 1-22 such as being surrounded by roads and being landlocked, this area is not able to act as a wetland for a larger geographic area, and rather only serves that small portion which is in the nurth- west corner of the property." 3. "Because of the limited size and the landlocked conditions of this parcel, it does not perform the functions of a wetland in the typical setting in which wetlands operate. In fact, one must stretch a point to even say that it functions as a wetland for the small area within its boundaries."