HomeMy WebLinkAboutWetland Management Plan Update ROSEMOLNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
Wetland Management Work Group Work Session Date: October 30, 2012
AGENDA ITEM: Wetland Management Plan Update AGENDA SECTION:
Discussion
PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner; Andy AGENDA NO.
Brotzler, City Engineer; Andi Moffatt, WSB
Environmental Manager 1.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Redline Wetland Management Plan APPROVED BY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss and Provide Comments on the Draft Changes to
the Wetland Management Plan.
ISSUE
The City adopted its first Wetland Management Plan in 1998 to preserve, protect, enhance, or mitigate
wetlands. The City has updated the Plan three times, the most recently in 2007. Staff is
recommending to update the Plan again, both to include revisions to the federal Wetland
Conservation Act and to include lessons learned from development since 2007. This is the only face
to -face meeting of the Wetland Management Work Group planned and any future discussion will
likely occur via e -mail. It is anticipated that the City Council will adopt the changes to the Plan and
staff and the Planning Commissioners on the Work Group will update the Planning Commission on
the changes.
DISCUSSION
Attached, please find the draft revisions of the Wetland Management Plan. The purpose of these
updates are to:
Update the plan to reflect changes in the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA).
Establish clear administrative authority for WCA decisions in the City.
Update the wetland assessment method to use the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method
(MnRAM) rather than the Rosemount Wetland Functional Assessment (RoseWFA).
Add wetland replacement performance standards per the WCA.
Clarify the wetland buffer rule and add buffer performance standards.
Provide clear language pertaining to wetland replacement siting standards that are specific to
the City.
The attached revised plan shows all the changes that have been made with this revision. These
revisions will be reviewed with the Wetland Management Plan task force. A summary of the main
changes are outlined below.
Section III: The definition of buffer zone and buffer averaging have been revised to help
improve interpretation of these rules based on experience with past project submittals.
Section V.G: Clear administrative authority has been defined in this section to state that City
Staff can make decisions on exemptions, no loss, wetland boundary and type determinations,
and projects that impact less than 10,000 square feet of wetland. City Council will make
decisions on projects that impact more than 10,000 square feet of wetland.
Section VII: The City will begin to use the most recent version of the MnRAM to assess the
functions and values of wetlands in the City. The MnRAM will replace the City's RoseWFA.
The MnRAM represents the most recent evolutions in the state's understanding of wetland
functions and values assessments. A MnRAM assessment will be required with the submission
of a site development plan and wetlands will be placed into management categories based on
the guidance provided by MnRAM.
Section VIII: This section has been revised to reflect the MnRAM nomenclature for placing
wetlands into management categories.
Section IX. B 1 -3: These sections have been revised to include a buffer prioritization process.
These draft standards are a result of plan reviews that have recently occurred and work to
address the buffer issues that resulted from those reviews. It provides a clear prioritization
that avoidance of the wetland is first, but that if the site is such that buffers and setbacks are
difficult to accommodate, the City will first provide flexibility on the setback and second on
the buffer width. No wetlands will be filled simply to accommodate a buffer.
Revisions also include buffer performance standards and the requirement to submit a buffer
management plan. The requirements of these standards and the plan are included as
Appendix I.
Section X: This section adds the City Council's past policy that wetland mitigation should
first be within the project site. Only if this cannot be accommodated, then the applicant can
mitigate within the same City subwatershed. The third option is mitigation within but outside
the same City subwatershed. The final option is if all others are deemed unfeasible by the City
Council is to purchase of wetland bank credits within the same major watershed.
Section XI: Applicants that have wetland mitigation will need to submit a vegetation
establishment and management plan and meet the performance standards outlined in the
WCA.
This summarizes the major changes with the document. The intent is to review these changes with
the task force, revise the plan based on that discussion, and then have the City Council adopt the final
plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the draft revisions to the Wetland Management Plan and provide direction to staff on the
goals of wetland preservation for the City.
2
4 ROSEMOUNT
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
1 a
q
Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan
ADOPTED 1998
AMENDED FEBRUARY 1999
AMENDED DECEMBER 2005
AMENDED DECEMBER 2007
AMENDED xxMONTHxx 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.
I. Executive Summary 1
II. Introduction and Purpose 2
III. Definitions and References 5
IV. Acknowledgements 8
V. Wetland Regulations 9
VI. Technical Elements 171714
VII. Functional Assessment 194-94-6
VIII. Wetland Classification 2(1-
IX. Wetland Management Policies 21.2117
X. Wetland Replacement 292925
XI. Replacement Wetland Construction Certification and Wetland Monitoring 3134 -2-7
XII. New Wetlands 323228
XIII. Other Programs 333329
LIST OF TABLES
1 IX -I. Wetland Management and Protection Requirements 27272822
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Wetland Map and Assessment Results
Appendix B RoseWFA (Wetland Functional Assessment) scoring system
Appendix C MnRAM
Appendix €-E-I City Council Resolution
Appendix E Appealed Wetland Management Classifications
Appendix F Buffer Performance Standards and Management Plan
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
I. Executive Summary
The Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (WMP. or Plan) is an
inventory/assessment of wetlands in Rosemount combined with a Plan and Ordinance designed
to maximize the benefit that surface waters can provide to the community. The wetland map of
the City and the wetland inventory and assessment completed for each wetland is contained in
Appendix A.
Appendix The inventory consists of detailed technical data on each wetland. Wetlands were
assessed for quality and functionality based on the information gathered in the field. Functional
scores are included with the wetland inventory. Each wetland has been mapped and included in
the City's Geographic Information System (GIS). The functional assessment information
contained within this document consists of the previously performed field evaluations and
assessments conducted by City staff in the development of the 1998 plan. Wetland assessments
that have been conducted since the WMP development are also included in the update.
Wetlands have been prioritized for management based on the assessed functional score. This
information gives City staff the ability to make an informed decision on what water resources are
important and should be protected from future urbanized growth and development. Wetlands
with the highest value were assigned the most aggressive management and protection strategies.
Past and present land development has influenced the administration of the WMP since the
adoption of the plan in 1998. Since then, a number of issues have been brought to the attention
of City staff that affect wetland mitigation and management. These issues have been handled
administratively by City staff, motions by Rosemount City Council or through Technical
Evaluation Panel (TEP) discussions. The City has becomebecame concerned with the ability to
enforce such administration without a policy and procedure adopted as ordinance by City
Council. In response, staff :amended the 1998 WMP to address the
outstanding and recurring issues associated with wetland impacts and management. The most
recent amendment was in 2007.
committee and City staff.
In 2007, 2009. 2011, and 2012, changes to the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) were made by
the State Legislature. Additionally, a wseveral wetlands had -have been reassessed with
development proposals. The 2007 2012 amendments to this WMP address the WCA rule
changes as well as incorporate the updated wetland
assessments, where applicable. in selected areas. New policies and provisions included in this
2012 update were discussed with the Task Force and City staff.
Page 1
December 2007October 2012
II. Introduction and Purpose
The City of Rosemount's Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (WMP) was developed in
1 1998 to be conformance with Minnesota Rules 8420.0650. The purpose of establishing the
WMP was to develop policies related to the use and protection of wetlands within the City. Prior
to 1998, wetland management and protection was primarily accomplished through site specific
permitting actions of various regulatory agencies. The purpose of the WMP was to provide the
City with the authority to rule on wetland impacts and implement regulations based on the needs
of the community.
The WMP was also designed to provide information to land developers and the public regarding
the amount, characteristics, and value of local wetlands and surface water. This WMP exists for
the purpose of optimizing the City's surface water resources as provided under the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act. The goals of this plan are to:
Determine the quantity and quality of the wetland resources in Rosemount
Map wetlands at a scale appropriate for local planning purposes
Maintain data for use by residents and developers
Focus limited resources in the most effective direction
Solve chronic wetland management problems
Identify key educational areas
Achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, functionality, and biological diversity of
Rosemount's existing wetlands
Increase the quantity, quality, functionality, and biological diversity of Rosemount's
wetlands by enhancing diminished or drained wetlands
Avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity,
quality, and biological diversity of wetlands
Replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible and prudent
Optimize management of City surface water and wetland by integrating all surface water
related management plans and ordinances
To identify existing and potential problems or opportunities for protection, management,
and development of water resources and related land resources in the county
To develop and implement a plan of action to promote sound management of water
resources in the City
Page 2
December 007October 2012
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or
Provide performance standards for wetland replacement areas. including the associated numbering, Adjust space between Latin and
p p Asian text, Adjust space between Asian text and
upland buffer numbers
According to the Metropolitan Council, the City of Rosemount is expected to be one of the top
ten growth cities in the metropolitan area between 1995 2020. Land development has put great
pressure on the quality and benefits associated with the City's surface water resources. The total
wetland area in Rosemount covers about 1,832 acres, or about 8% of the City. About 1,174 of
these acres are associated with the Mississippi River corridor. Most of the remaining 658 acres
include about 400 other surface water bodies in Rosemount which are small to medium sized
pothole wetlands lying within the City's northwest corner. Here a swath of the Wisconsin Age,
St. Croix Moraine has left behind a hilly terrain with many potholes and small enclosed
watersheds. Large tracts of this area are yet to be developed, but are seen as prime locations for
residential housing. Just north across Rosemount's border within the City of Eagan is the
Lebanon Hills Regional Park which takes advantage of this interesting terrain for education and
recreation.
Wetlands within the City were assessed in 1997 and 1998 as a part of the WMP plan
development (see Appendix A). This field assessment focused on the undeveloped Municipal
Urban Service Area (MUSA) identified in the 2020 Land Use Plan. These properties have a
greater density of wetlands and surface waters than other areas of the City and are expected to
experience significant development and have the highest potential for wetland impacts. The
1998 WMP and ordinance were in effect before much of the development projects in
Rosemount, allowing the City to protect and preserve the natural water resources to the fullest
extent feasible on the property being developed. Additional functional assessments have been
performed since the development of the plan and subsequent updates. This 2012 amendment
incorporates all assessments since 2007.
The City has applied the WMP policies on all land development in the City of Rosemount since
the adoption of the plan in 1998. The plan provides a clear outline of the City's expectations
concerning wetland management and protection. Buffer monuments have contributed to the
public education portion of the WMP. Buffer areas themselves have increased in overall area
and vegetation density. Wetland monitoring provides the City with technical data on mitigation
sites. The data are reviewed to ensure that the appropriate wetland type and functionality is
attained. The City's 1998 Erosion Control policy has helped to prevent soil erosion and
deposition impacts to wetlands adjacent to construction.
Based on the implementation of this Plan since 1998 and subsequent amendments, it has been
determined by the City that a number of policy clarifications were needed. The purpose of this
plan amendment is to address the following issues:
Wetland buffer zones and related policies, including performance standards
Location of storm water best management practices (BMP) ponds within buffers
including clarification of the types of storm water BMP's allowed in buffers
!Public education
Comment []C1]: These are deleted here since
they were addressed in the 2007 update.
Page 3
1 October 2012
Wetland mitigation replacement regulations and procedures, including siting
requirements that encourage replacement within the City limits
Address secondary impacts to wetlands that may be caused as a result of a land use
change
Changes to the WCA as per updates in 2009, 2011. 2012
Incorporate the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) as a replacement for
the RoseWFA for wetland functions and values assessments
Establish clear administrative authority for WCA decisions
Specifically include the goal of the City to identify, evaluate, and pursue wetland
replacement sites.
The WMP provides greater flexibility and control over wetland management and protection to
meet the specific needs and goals of the community. The plan was developed in recognition of
the City of Rosemount's 2020 Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive Stormwater Management
Plan. This document is written in recognition of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and shall
serve as a supplement to this legislation.
This wetland management plan has been developed to be in conformance with the Wetland
Conservation Act. Any future changes in the WCA would supersede the requirements outlined
in this plan.
Page 4
December 2 /070ctober 2012
III. Definitions and References
Applicant: Person or party proposing wetland impact or related activity.
Best management practices: State approved and practices published in the "Protecting Water
Quality in Urban Areas" associated with draining, filling, or replacing wetlands that are capable
of preventing and minimizing degradation of surface water and groundwater. The "Protecting
Water Quality in Urban Areas" manual is written and produced by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency.
Buffer zones: Non wetland areas which extend a specified distance from the wetland edge.
Buffer zones are undeveloped. un- manicured, and minimally maintained terrestrial areas of
native or naturally occurring vegetation that experience little to no human impact. Buffer zones
help to protect adverse impacts to the wetland. Restrictions apply to the activities within a
wetland buffer zone once a buffer is established. The buffer starts at the delineated wetland
edge.
Buffer Averaging: Practice of allowing a variable width buffer around a wetland where the
average buffer width is equal to the buffer width required for the wetland management category.
Buffer averaging shall incorporate landscape connectivity where possible and ecologically
feasible. Some examples include. but are not limited to. averaging the butter to be wider around
the portion of the wetland where upstream development will occur. to incorporate a steep bank to
protect the area from erosion. or to incorporate a higher quality habitat to protect the area from
disturbance.
City: The incorporated City of Rosemount.
Complete Application: An application, as defined in MN Rule 8420, that meets the
requirements as per MN Rule 8420.0255, Subp. 2 Determination of a Complete Application and
contains sufficient and technically accurate information required to make a decision, as
determined by the City. An application may be deemed incomplete if it contains information that
does not support the conclusions on which the application is based and for which a decision has
been requested.
Creation: Construction of wetlands in an area that was not wetlands in the past.
Excavation: The displacement or removal of the sediment or other materials by any method.
Fill: Any solid material added to or re deposited in a wetland that would alter its cross section or
wetland to a non wetland. It does not include posts and pilings for linear projects such as
Page 5
L)cccmbcr 2007October 2012
irculation of water or the reach of the wetland. As defined in
MN Rule 8420.
Growing Season: The portion of the year when soil temperature at 19.7 inches below the soil
approximated by the number of frost free days. As defined in theyegional Supplement to the Formatted: Font Italic
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region.
Hydric soils: Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season
to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.
Hydrophytic vegetation: Macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil, or on a substrate that is
at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content.
or filling or excavating.As defined in Mn Rule 8420.
Indirect impact: jn impact that is a result of an activity that occurs outside of the wetland Formatted: Font: Not Bold
boundary (Mn Rule 8420) including. but not limited to, impacts associated with altering the
hydrologic inputs to a wetland basin that results in convertinc the wetland to nonwetland or
changing the wetland type. Indirect impacts are determined on a per- project basis and shall be
evaluated by the City and in consultation with the Technical Evaluation Panel, at the discretion Formatted: Font: Not Bold
of the City.
Landowner: A person or entity having the rights necessary to drain or fill a wetland, or to
establish and maintain a replacement or banked wetland. Typically, the landowner is a fee title
owner or a holder of an easement, license, lease, or rental agreement providing the necessary
rights. The right must not be limited by a lien or other encumbrance that could override the
obligations assumed with the replacement or banking of a wetland.
Local government unit: The City of Rosemount.
Project: A specific plan, contiguous activity, proposal, or design necessary to accomplish a goal
as defined by the local government unit. As used in this chapter, a project may not be split into
components or phases for the sole purpose of gaining additional exemptions.
Public value of wetlands: The public benefit and use of wetlands as determined based upon a
functional assessment method.
Soil and water conservation district: A legal subdivision of state government under Minnesota
Statutes, chapter 103C.
Upland Buffer Credit: For the purposes of this Plan, Upland Buffer Credit shall incorporate the Formatted: Not Highlight
requirements and standards of Mn Rule 8420.0526, Subpt. 2.
Wetlands:
Page 6
December 2007October 2012
A. Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually
at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this Plan
wetlands must:
(1) Have a predominance of hydric soils;
(2) Be inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; and
(3) Under normal circumstances, support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation.
B. The wetland size is the area within its boundary. The boundary must be determined
according to the United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(January 1987). The wetland type must be determined according to United States Fish
and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition).
Wetland Replacement Credit: For the purposes of this Plan. Wetland Replacement Credit Formatted: Font: Bold
shall mean the Actions Eligible for Credit, as per Mn Rule 8420.0526. Subpts. 3 to 7, Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Font: Bold
References
Eggers, Steve D. and Donald Reed, Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and
Wisconsin, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul MN, (1987).
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Field Guide,
(1997).
Minnesota Storm Water Advisory Group, Buffer Zones, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, (September 1997).
Minnesota Storm Water Advisory Group, Storm -Water and Wetlands: Planning and
Evaluation Guidelines for Addressing Potential Impacts of Urban Storm -Water and Snow-
Melt Runoff on Wetlands, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, (June 1997).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Wetlands of the United States, United States Fish
and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39, (1971).
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wetland Delineation Manual, (1987).
U. S. Arm) Corps o'f Engineers. 2010. Regional Supylement to the Cops of En /fleet's Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 Bulleted Level:
Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. 1 Aligned at: 0.29" Indent at: 0.54 Tab
S y stops: Not at 0.5"
Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC /EL TR- 10 -16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center.
Cowardin, et al., Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States,
(1979)
Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology for
Evaluating Wetland Functions, Version 4,03.4 beta May (1.9962010).
National Wetland Inventory Maps United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Page 7
December 2107October 2012
IV. Acknowledgements
The Rosemount WMP and subsequent updates was were developed with input from a- two
wetland committees and a Task Force. The members of this committee are outlined below:
2012
Kimberly Shoe Corrigan, City Council
Jeffery Weisensel, City Council
Wade Miller, Planning Commission
Ammar Iiusain, Planning Commission
2004 2005 Committee
Kimberly Shoe Corrigan, City Council
Jeffery Weisensel, Former Planning Commission
John Powell, Planning Commission
Joan Schneider, Utility Commission
Andrea Moffatt, WSB Associates Inc.
Chad Donnelly, Water Resource Engineer
1997 1998 Committee
Kimberly Shoe Corrigan, Planning Commission
Jeffery Weisensel, Planning Commission
Donald Berg, Utility Commission
Kelly Sampo, Parks Committee
Tim P. Brown, Water Resources Coordinator
Brian Huser, Intern
Bud Osmundson, Public Works Director
Wayne Barstad, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Matt Moore, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Doug Norris, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Brian Watson, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District
Page 8
December 20070ctober 2012
V. Wetland Regulations
The existing wetland regulatory framework in Minnesota involves a number of federal, state. and
local agencies including the US Army Corps of Engineers. Department of Natural Resources.
Pollution Control Agency, and the Local Government Units. A brief discussion of the role of
each wetland regulatory agency is included in this section.
agency:
A. US Army Corps of Engineers
The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials
to wetlands and other water bodies through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act provided
there is a connection to navigable waters. Any impact to navigable waters or wetlands that
are connected to navigable waters, including filling draining, or excavation. may require a
permit from the COE. Wetland delineations are also subject to COE approval. Depending
on the size and extent of the wetland impact, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency may
be involved in providing water quality certification for the COE permit. For more
information about the COE regulations, the area COE Project Manager can be contacted at
(651) 290 -5367 or information can be obtained from the St. Paul District COE website at
www.mvp.usace.army.mil.The US Army Corp of Engineers (COE)-regulates the discharge of
dredged or fill materials to wetlands and other water bodies through Section-z1-0-1-4-the-Glean
Water Act provided that there is a surface water eertnection to navigable waters. Any impact
"015 or information can be obtained from the COE website at
B. Department of Natural Resources
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has jurisdiction over Public Waters and
Wetlands as depicted on the DNR Public Waters and Wetland maps. The DNR has
jurisdiction over Public Water and Wetlands below the Ordinary 1ligh Water (OFIW)
elevation or below the top -of -bank for streams. The OHW is determined by the DNR. Any
impact to a Public Water or Wetland may require a permit from the DNR. The DNR Area
Hydrologist can be contacted for more information at 651 -259 -5654 or information can be
obtained from the DNR website at www.dnr. state .mn.us /waters.The Department of Natural
the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW) or to -thee top of bark for streams. The OHW is
from the DNR. The DNR Area 14ydrol Dist -eaa -be contacted for mere information at (651)
772 7910 or information can be obtained from the DNR website at
Page 9
Det•cmbcr• 20070ctober• 2012
C. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) water quality standards applicable to wetland
protection are contained in Minnesota Rules 7050. Water quality standards are applicable to
all wetlands of the state and sequencing requirements of Minnesota Rule 7050.0186 apply to
all wetland alterations that are permitted or certified by the MPCA as described below.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) /SDS permit program is a
delegated federal permit issued under the responsibilities and authorities contained in
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115. In accordance with Minnesota Rule 7050.0186. sequencing
requirements to avoid. minimize, and mitigate wetland impacts are required to be satisfied in
the issuance of MPCANPDES /SDS permits, including, issuance of the general Construction
Storm Water NPDES permits. If a project includes a physical wetland alteration caused by
draining, filling. excavation, or inundation of the wetland and that impact is not addressed in
either the US Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit, the Department of Natural Resources
permit. or the Wetland Conservation Act permit. then mitigation compliance with Minnesota
Rule 7050.0186 must be demonstrated. For the purposes of the MPCA NPDES permit, de
minimis determinations by another permitting agency that address the project impacts are
recognized by the MPCA. However, a non jurisdictional determination by another
permitting agency that does not address project impacts requires the project Proposer to
demonstrate that they meet the NPDES permit conditions and Minnesota Rule 7050.0186.
In the past, 7050.0186 requirements were often applied during the issuance of Section 401
Water Quality Certification which is part of the issuance process of the COE 404 permit.
The 401 Water Quality Certification program is an element of the Federal Clean Water Act
and has been delegated to the MPCA. Under this program. the MPCA reviews all federal
permits including Clean Water Act Section 404 permit applications for compliance with state
water quality standards primarily contained in Minnesota Rule 7050. The MPCA can
approve, deny, or waive 401 certification. If denied. the federal permit, usually the COE 404
permit, cannot be issued. As of the writing of this SWPMP, the MPCA does not implement
the Section 401 program on a regular basis and nearly all certifications are being waived.
This action does not eliminate, waive, or vary the applicant's responsibility to comply with
all water quality standards and requirements contained in Minnesota Rules 7050. In addition.
this waiver action does not w aive MPCA's authority to take necessary actions, including
enforcement actions, to ensure that the applicant and the project's construction, installation.,
and operation comply with water quality standards and all other applicable MPCA statutes
and rules regarding water quality...
requirements of Minn. Rule 7050.0 -186 apply to-all wetlankl-alterations that are permitted or
certified by the MPCA as described below.
Rule 7050.0186 requires a sequencing evaluatio
Construction Storm Water NPDES permits. If a project includes a physical wetland
Page 10
December 20070ctober 2012
Rule 7050.0186 must be demonstrated. For the purposes of
does require the project proposer te- de{nonstrate that it meets the NPDES permit conditions
In the past, 7050.0186 requirements were often- applied during the issuance of Section 101
MPCA viewed all federal permits including Clean Water Act Section 404 permit
nforccmcnt actions, to ensure that the
standards and all other applicable MPCA statutes and rules regarding water quality.
D. Local Government Unit (LGU)
The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) is a state law enacted in 1991 and subsequently
amended (Minnesota Laws CH 354, Minnesota Statute 1030.222 -2373 and other scattered
sections). The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) provides agency oversight for
WCA through Minnesota Rule 8420. The WCA is administered by Local Government Units
(LGU). BWSR's role is to assist LGUs in the implementation of WCA and to be a member
of the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP).
The Wetland Conservation A-ct (WCA} is a state law' that was passed in 1 991 and h a° been
subsequently amended (Minn. Laws CH 354, Minn. Statute 1030.222 2373 and other
r ,J, r
Local Government Units (LGUs) in the implementation of the WCA and to be a member of
the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP).
The WCA is administered by the LGUs. The City of Rosemount is the LGU for the WCA
within the City's political boundary. The City can issue or deny permits depending on
whether or not the project is in conformance the WCA and the requirements of this plan.
The intent of the WCA is to achieve a "No Net Loss" of wetlands in Minnesota. Therefore,
the WCA prohibits filling, draining, and excavating of wetlands in some areas unless the
activity is exempt or wetlands are replaced by restoration or creation of wetland of at least
I equal- puhltc valuefunctions and values.
Page 11
December 21070ctober 2012
any wetland, or excavating in the permanently or semi
permanently flooded areas .f a type 1 4, or 5 wetland, or excavation greater than
6 feet in any wetland is anticipated as a part of a project, an application must be
are contained on BWSR's web site at
•Ian. An application fee may apply.
2. V efland Delineation
For any site development activities within the City of Rosemount, the City
location and the extent of any wetlands present on the site. Wetland delis ations
growing sc,uson, and will be consider d incomplete if received at a time of year
Sequencing must be provided as a part of an application for wetlands categorized
sequencing flexibility when impacts are proposed. An applicant who proposes to
impact a wetland identified in the WMP must adhere to the wctleriegaencing
complete sequencing evaluation will be made by the City and/or TEP assigned to
the project. For a comprehensive description of the Sequencing standards, see
Minn. Rules 8420.0520 in the WCA.
replaced. Replacement of lost functions and values
must be in conformance with the Wetland Replacement section of this plan.
Applications can be found at BWSR's web site
feasible. replacement locations should be within the same subwatershed within
Page 12
1 December 20070ctober 2012
for the mitigation requirements except as othe 4se provided in Minnesota Rules
8420.0541
Wetland replacement may be completed in the farm of New Wetland Credit
description of NWC and PVC, see Minn. Rules 8420.0541 in the Wetland
Conservation Act. t
(5) (6) and Subp. 5. Impacts need to he avoided -end minimized to the greatest
Applications can be found at BWSR's web site
6. WEA Exemptions
not he regulated by the policies within this Plan.
E. Wetland Applications Preeess
Wetland related applications shall be submitted to the City of Rosemount as per the
requirements of this plan and Mn Rule 8420. These aApplications forms can be found on arc
available at BWSR's web -site: http: /www.hwsr. state .mn.us /wetlands /index.html.
1. Wetland Boundary or Type Application
For any site development activities within the City of Rosemount, the City
requires the developer to submit a wetland delineation report that identifies the
location and the extent of any wetlands present on the site. Wetland delineations
must be performed in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual for
Delineating Wetlands in conjuction with the Midwest Supplement or most recent.
industry- accepted methodology. Delineations are to be performed by a wetland
professional who has been trained in wetland delineations. Wetland delineations
should be performed during the growing season. and will he considered
incomplete if received at a time of year not conducive for proper review.
Delineations are valid for five years. or as specified in a Notice of Decision issued
by the LGU.
Page 13
1 Deeentber•- ?00- 7October 2012
Delineations will be subject to field verification by City staff, the Technical
Evaluation Panel (TEP) and /or the US Army Corps of Engineers. It is
recommended that City staff review wetland delineations prior to plan
development and/or application submittal.
2. No Loss and Exemption Applications
The WCA No Loss and Exemption standards are covered in MN Rule 8420.0410-
0420, as amended. and are included by reference to this Plan. Applications for
No Loss or Exemption determinations shall follow the procedures and
requirements of MN Rule 8420. Wetlands that are exempt per the WCA shall not
be regulated by the policies within this Plan.
3. Sequencing Application
Sequencing must be provided as a part of an application for wetlands categorized
as Preserve, Manage 1, and Manage 2. Manage 3 wetlands are applicable for
sequencin flexibility when impacts are proposed. An applicant who proposes to
impact a wetland must adhere to the wetland SequencinStandards outlined in
MN Rule 8420.0520. The applicant may submit a sequencing evaluation with the
wetland replacement plan application or apply for a preliminary sequencing
decision from the City, as per Mn Rule 8420.0325, as amended. The
determination of a complete sequencing evaluation will be made by the City
and/or TEP assigned to the project.
4. Replacement Plan Application
When tilling or draining any wetland, or excavating in the permanently or semi
permanently flooded areas of a type 3, 4, or 5 wetland. or excavation greater than
6 feet in any wetland is anticipated. a replacement plan application must be
completed by the project proposer and submitted to the City. These applications
are contained on BWSR's web site at
Jttp: /www.bwsr. state .mn.us /wetlands /index.html. If wetland impacts are Field Code Changed
unavoidable, a wetland replacement plan must accompany the application as
outlined within this plan. An application fee may apply.
Once sequencing has been completed in conformance with this plan and Mn Rule
8420 and it has been determined that wetland impacts are unavoidable. the lost
functions and values of the wetland must be replaced. Replacement of lost
functions and values must be in conformance with Section" Wetland
Replacement section of this plan. The wetland replacement standards of the
WCA (Mn Rule 8420.0522. as amended) shall be incorporated by reference in
this Plan, except where this Plan is more restrictive. Actions Eligible for Credit
for wetland replacement asper Mn Rule 8420.0526, as amended, are included by
reference in this Plan except where this Plan is more restrictive.
Although the WCA allows for upland buffer to qualify for wetland replacement,
the City, at its discretion, may require that the full replacement ratio be entirely in
the form of wetland creation or restoration. The preservation of existing wetlands
on the subject property is not an eligible credit for the mitigation requirements
except as otherwise provided in Minnesota Rules 8420.0526
Page 14
1 Deeerrrber-200 -7Ociober 2012
It is strongly encouraged that wetlands categorized as Manage 2 or Manage
3within this plan are utilized for wetland replacement when feasible. For example,
the restoration or expansion of a Manage 2 or 3 wetland would be preferable,
under this Plan. than the expansion of a Preserve or Manage 1 wetland. The goal
of this recommendation is to increase the functions and values of the degraded
wetlands within the City as part of projects that result in impacting wetlands.
5. Replacement for Public Transportation Projects
Through the WCA, wetland impacts that occur due to road improvement projects
that address safety issues and are not undertaken solely to accommodate
additional traffic capacity by the City or County as the local road authority may
be eligible to be replaced by BWSR through the Local Government Wetland
Replacement Program. Mn Rule 8420.0544 is incorporated by reference in this
Plan. Applications can be found at BWSR's web -site
http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/index.html.
F. Wetland Application and Decision Procedures
l Application review and decision procedures by the LGU shall follow the requirements as per Formatted: No underline, Font color: Auto,
Mn Rule 8420.0255, as amended, and those procedures are included by reference. I Highlight
It' wetland impact is less than 19.000 square feet, the cit) will send a summary and Notice of Formatted: Tab stops: 0.25", Left Not at 0"
me WCA 11t ]C2 W requirement
TEP, Watershed Management Organization, the DNR. COE -he Watershed Management
Organization, and anyone who has requested such information. The TEP, Watershed
o
Once the comment period has ended, the City will make a decision on the application within
60 days of receiving a complete application in accordance with Minn. Rules 8420.0230 Subp.
2. If the 60 day process cannot be accommodated due to the timing of the preliminary plat
process, the applicant will be informed. Generally applications will be approved or denied
during the preliminary plat process. Once a decision is made, the City will mail a Notice of
Decision to all who received a summary or copy of the permit
application. The City's decision is then effective and the project can commence provided
that replacement of the wetland impacts occurs before or concurrently with the wetland
impact, and provided all other permits from other agencies have been obtained, and that the
conditions. if any of the Notice of Decision are fully met. There is a 30 day appeal process
in MN Rule Chapter 8420. The applicant can begin work during this appeal window at its
own risk. If the LGU's decision is appealed, work on the project would be suspended until
the appeal process is resolved. See Section H, below, for appeal procedures.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Page 15
October 2012
The project proposer can appeal the City's decision. This appeal must be made to the Board
of Water and Soil Resources within 30 days after-the date on which the Notice of Decision is
mailed. Minn. Rule 81-20.0250 can be consulted for further information on appeals.
G. Local Government Unit Decision Authority Summary
As part of the 2012 amendment, a resolution delegating WCA administrative functions to
LGU staff is incorporated in the Plan. The resolution can be found in Appendix D and is Formatted: Font: Bold, No underline, Font
summarized as follows:
color: Auto
1. The City Council of the City of Rosemount places decision authority for
exemption, no loss, and wetland boundary and type determinations with City
Staff.
2. Decision authority for replacement plan applications that impact 10,000 square
feet or greater of wetland and wetland banking determinations is placed with the
City Council of the City of Rosemount. Decision authority for replacement plan
applications that impact less than 10,000 square feet can be placed with City
Staff, unless it is deemed necessary. by the Citv, to bring the application to the
City Council for a decision.
3. City of Rosemount Staff may request that decisions for exemption. no loss, and
wetland boundary and type determinations be made by the City Council.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
d Replacement Plans that impact greater than 10,000 sf of wetland
e e and or Exemption Determinations can be made by City Staff, unless
it is deemed necessary to bring the application to --the City Council.
H. Appeals of Wetland Application Decisions and Enforcement Procedures
Appeals of exemption, no -loss, wetland boundary, wetland type. sequencing, replacement
plan, or banking plan decisions made by the City will follow the appeal process in
accordance with MN Rule 8420. as amended.
Wetland Conservation Act Enforcement procedures shall be in conformance with MN Rule
8420.
ure changes in the WCA would supersede the requirements
outlined in this plan.
Page 16
December 2007October 2012
VI. Technical Elements
A. Wetland /Surface Water Inventory
Wetlands were identified based on instructions in the "Minnesota Wetland Delineation
Field Guide Included in field documentation is notation on: hydrology, size, vegetation
and soils, several photographs, and Dakota County topographic half section map
locations.
This field reconnaissance was carried out in 1997 and 1998 by the City's Water
Resources Engineer with assistance from interns trained and supervised by the former.
The database was set up using the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) compiled in 1987
using aerial photography. The database was then modified with any changes found by
field inspection during the spring, summer and fall of 1997 and spring of 1998. Wetlands
found by field inspection that were not listed in the NWI have been added. Wetland
determinations were arrived at using the three defining factors for a wetland, Hydrology,
Vegetation, and Soils. Each of these parameters needs to be present before an area
could be determines as "wetland" according to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual for
Delineating Wetlands.
B. Field Methods
Various resources were utilized both in the office and in the field to determine possible
wetland sites. Initially, 1991 topographic maps were used in conjunction with the NWI
map to locate wetlands in the City. Next, 1991 aerial photographs were viewed to locate
low and possible water holding areas. The last step in the office reconnaissance was to
check the local soils map for hydric (wetland) soils. After these preparatory steps were
taken, the field work was undertaken. All areas were covered on foot, and low areas or
areas with one of the three wetland indicators (hydrology, soils, and vegetation) were
tested. Areas that tested as wetlands were documented on field data sheets as well as
sketched onto topographic maps for approximate representation of size. Photographs
were taken of the wetland sites as well. Precise delineations of wetlands are left to be
completed by property owners, as the need arises.
C. Database Information
Using the information collected during field work, wetlands were categorized using the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NWI classification systems. This information was
then entered into the wetland database. The database shows Rosemount's wetland
number, size, FWS type, DNR number, and other relevant information (see Appendix
A). This information is directly linked to the Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
map which shows all of the wetlands in Rosemount that were identified in the inventory
process. The inventory does not include all surface water features with the City of
Rosemount. Wetland features of the GIS system are visual representations of the
identified wetlands and do not represent the actual wetland delineation
Page 17
December 2007October 2012
D. Geographic Information Systems Map
Polygon coverage using the program Arcview was linked to the tabular data in the
Microsoft Access Database with a common identifier. Polygons representing the shape
of the wetlands were drawn using contour and parcel coverages as a backdrop. The
overall process was used to create a digital map that can be accessed with ease to locate
wetlands throughout the City of Rosemount. Maps can be generated and database
information about the wetlands can be viewed. The GIS maps are updated seasonally to
account for wetland impact activity and monitoring accomplished for that season. New
and replacement wetlands will be incorporated in the GIS database and City map as they
are established. The functionality and classification will be updated based on the
monitoring information provided to the City. The GIS map will also be updated to reflect
new information (i.e. wetland delineation decisions, revised management classitictions,
etc) on an as needed basis. For example. since the 2007 update. the City has received
applications for wetland boundary decisions that have resulted, upon review and approval
by the City, in several features identified in the WMP as wetland being determined to be
nonwetland. These features have been removed from the Plan and as such, are not
regulated by the policies herein.
Page 18
1 December 2 ?O7Oclober 2012
VII. Functional Assessment
The functional value of each wetland was evaluated in 1997 -1998 with respect to the following
functional parameters:
Floral diversity and integrity
Water quality protection
Fish and wildlife habitat
Flood/storm water attenuation
Shoreline protection
Groundwater recharge and discharge
Aesthetic /recreation/education and science
Commercial uses
Wetland functionality was assessed in 1997 according to a modified version of the Minnesota
Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) referred to as the Rosemount Wetland Functional
I Assessment (RoseWFA) worksheet kAppendix B)). It was developed over in 1997 and-in
consultation with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Rosemount
Wetland Committee, and City staff.
The 2012 Plan Amendment replaces RoseWFA with them most current version of MnRAM. The
MnRAM has become the state standard for wetland assessments. MnRAM C) is a Formatted: Font: Bold, No underline, Font
comprehensive assessment of both a wetland's function and value and can be directly associated color: Auto
with WCA policies in implementing this Plan.
Upon the submittal for approval of a proposed or planned plat or any other development of a site
or property, the City will require that the applicant complete a re- assessment of the wetlands
using the RoseWFA most current version of MnRAM. This is in addition to the wetland
delineation report that is required to be submitted if the site is proposed to be developed. Field
work must be completed during the growing season as defined in this Plan, which is generally
May 1— October 15. but may fall outside of this date range depending on climate conditions.
Page 19
October 2012
VIII. Wetland Classification
Wetlands are classified for management and protection based on the total scorc of each
A "Basic Wetland Protection" management
strategy in MnRAM. The management classifications and corresponding functional scores are as
follows:
score ranging between 425 660.
between 280 420 and were select
special value.
between 280 420.
between 0 275.
Preserve (P): Wetlands that were placed into the Preserve category generally provided
the highest functions for vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat.
Manage 1 (M1): Wetlands that were placed into the Manage 1 category generally
provided high functions for vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat with some functions
for water quality protection and flood attenuation.
Manage 2 (M2): Wetlands that were placed into the Manage 2 category generally
provided some functions for vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat with high functions
for water quality protection and flood attenuation.
Manage 3 (M3): Wetlands that were placed into the Manage 3 category generally Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5 Tab stops: Not
provided the highest functions for water qualityprotection and flood attenuation. at 0^
Appeal of a Management Classification: In the event of a dispute concerning wetland Formatted: Font: Bold, No underline, Font
management classification, the applicant or project proposer will be required to submit a Request color: Auto
for Appeal to the City's Engineer. The Request for Appeal must include the wetland number,
current classification, and reason(s) for the appeal. A functional assessment will -may be
conducted by City staff or a City approved wetland specialist. A decision will be made based on
a review of the information within 30 days during the growing season or 30 days after the
growing season begins, if thefequest for Appeal is submitted outside of the growing season. A Formatted: Font: Italic, No underline, Font
Notice notice of Decision the City's decision on the management classification appeal will be color: Auto
sent to the appealing party and the regulatory agencies. Thise Notice notice of Dccisien will
indicate either the revised wetland management classification (if the City concurs with the
appeal) or the existing management classification and the management and protection strategies
assigned to the wetland by support of this document. Staff will make a decision within 60 days
of receiving a complete request of appeal (or within the appropriate time period after the growing
season begins if the application was submitted outside of the growing season) and notify the
applicant of the decision. Appeals to this decisionof the City Engineer's decision can be made to
Page 20
1 December 2007October 2012
the City Council. Approved appeal requests and subsequent management classification changes
are in,Appendix E. Formatted: Font: Bold, No underline, Font
color: Auto
IX. Wetland Management Policies
A. General Water Quality Practices
For wetlands citywide, several tools can be applied with minimal expense. The City shall
maintain its regularly scheduled program of street sweeping and storm drain sump
cleaning. City streets are swept twice yearly and catch basin sumps are cleaned
seasonally based on the schedule of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
(SWPPP). These programs can have a significant impact on wetland water quality by
removing sediments and chemicals from the storm water runoff that enters surface water
bodies.
The Engineering Department and Building Inspections currently maintain a general
erosion control inspection and enforcement program. The goal of this program is to
minimize transport of sediments eroded from construction sites to surface water bodies.
This program is supported by language in the City's Surface Water Management
Ordinance as well as the Uniform Building Code for the State of Minnesota. This
program is continually being reviewed and improved to minimize the impact to water
quality of storm water runoff.
In compliance with state requirements, the City has developed and implemented a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) which focuses on the preventative
aspects of storm water pollution. The SWPPP is a combination of Best Management
Practices (BMPs), ordinance, and public education tools used to prevent storm water
pollution. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has required the City of
Rosemount to submit a SWPPP for review and approval. The City is required to submit
an annual report with results and summaries of the actions taken for the previous year.
In order to organize and implement Rosemount's Wetland and Surface Water
Management Plan, an ordinance has been developed under Minnesota Statute Chapter
462. This ordinance is available on the Citv's webpage.
Efforts to educate residents regarding wetland ecosystems and best management practices
are ongoing and will continue. Along with dissemination of surface water specific
information, programs that will encourage direct action on the part of residents, such as
the Citizens Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) will be discussed by City staff. The
City will continue to promote and sponsor an "Adopt -A- Wetland" program. This will
enlist volunteers to collect litter and trash that accumulates around and within City
wetlands as well as addressing other needs as they develop. Other educational
opportunities will be actively sought.
B. Category Specific Management Strategies
The inventory and functional assessment information was used to determine management
categories for individual wetlands based on functional level. Wetlands that score highest
are targeted for maximum protection and resource dedication. The wetland category
management strategies were designed to optimize resource allocation. The goal of this
Page 21
Deccmber 20070ctober 2012
plan is to devote resources in a manner that optimizes the overall functional value of
wetlands to the community and the natural ecosystem. This plan does not "roll back" any
protection for wetlands existing under state or federal law but rather specifies proactive
management strategies scaled to the current functional levels of Rosemount wetlands.
The management strategies call for increasing levels of protection for wetlands that score
high in the functional assessment. In terms of actual management practices these
different levels are implemented through buffer zones, storm water treatment, mitigation
requirements, and public education.
1. Wetland Buffer Zones and Prioritization
Wetland Buffer Zones are upland areas that contain natural areas of vegetation designated
by a LGU to protect the ecological values and functions of the aquatic system. Buffer
zone functions include:
Stabilizing soils and preventing erosion
Filtering suspended solids and nutrients
Supporting and protecting fish and wildlife habitat
Encouraging the production of unique vegetation
Stabilizing water temperature
Deterring human encroachment
Provide habitat connections for wildlife
Dense native vegetation is the optimal condition for an effective wetland buffer zone.
Once established, activities in buffer zones that are not associated with the approved
buffer management plan that disturb the roots or influence the growth of the vegetation,
such as grading, mowing, landscaping and planting, fertilizing, spraying (herbicides), and
seeding or sodding are prohibited. Herbicides and controlled burns or other management
practices used to control noxious weeds will be allowed only with permission from the
City Engineer.
The width of buffer considered appropriate to protect a wetland from degradation is
related to the wetland functions being protected and the buffer functions being provided.
Buffer widths for each management category are outlined below and described in Table
IX 1. Additional buffer zone may be required above and beyond the prescribed width if
determined necessary and feasible by the City Engineer.
Preserve: 75 feet
Manage41: 50 feet
Manage In: 30 feet
Manage 1113: 15 feet (non agricultural areas)
In addition to the buffers, the City requires a 30' structure setback from the buffer to
allow for usable yard space.
Buffers will be contained within a conservation easement that includes both the wetland
and the buffer. A sample of the City's conservation easement i Appendix DEcan be
Page 22
Deeerrrber• 2007October 2012
obtained from the City. The conservation easements will be recorded with the final plat
and must be indicated on subsequent land development plans. The extent of the
conservation easement will be determined based on the prescribed buffer width for the
wetland in question and/or the outer limits of an approved averaged wetland buffer.
These easements provide the City with a legal right to the property and the ability to
enforce the wetland buffer requirements as outlined in this document.
The construction of bike paths or trails through designated wetland buffers will be
determined administratively by City staff. The applicant must demonstrate that the
placement of the trail does not result in a loss of total wetland buffer area for the wetland.
The buffer area consumed by the placement of the bike path or trail must be compensated
for by establishing additional buffer areas in equal or greater amount consumed by the
bike path or trail. The buffer area on both sides of the bike path or trail must remain
natural and must not be manicured or landscaped.
All projects will need to take into account a buffer prioritization review. This
prioritization review involves the following and is required to be included in a wetland
application:
a) Projects shall include the buffer and setback standards. however, no wetlands. Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered
shall be tilled or impacted in order to provide for the appropriate buffer. Level: 1 +Numbering style: a, b, c, +start
at: 1 Alignment: Left Aligned at: 1"
Indent at: 1.25"
h) in cases where meeting the setback standard causes impact to the wetland or Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 1.25"
the buffer, flexibility on the wetland setback will be considered.
Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered
Level: 1 +Numbering Style: a, b, c,
c) In cases where meeting the buffer standard causes impact to the wetland, +start
at: 1 Alignment: Left Aligned at: 1"
flexibility on the buffer will be considered. When flexibility in the buffer Indent at: 1.25"
width is determined to be necessary by the City. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5 No bullets or
numbering, Tab stops: Not at -0.75" -0.5"
0 025 O5 75
Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered
Level: 1 Numbering Style: a, b, c, Start
the project at: 1 Alignment: Left Aligned at: 1"
proposer or applicant must adhere consider to the following: Indent at: 1.25"
The buffer width averaging will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis.
The buffer plan will take into account landscape connections and habitat
corridors needs to be incorporated into the buffer plan. See definition of
buffer averaging in Section III. Formatted: Font: Not Bold
The buffer plan will include the percent of the buffer that will be impacted
as compared to the size of the wetland.
A minimum 30' buffer is allowed- encouraged on P and M1 wetlands.
A minimum 15' buffer is a-llewed- encouraged on M2 and M3 wetlands.
Averaged buffer acreage must be equal to or greater than the required
buffer acreage
Page 23
1 L `ember 2007October 2012
An exception to the minimum buffer average will be considered for linear public road
projects on existing roads.
Conservation easements are required over the buffer perimeter and will be recorded at the
time of final plat. The City Engineer will review the proposal and either approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the request to utilize buffer averaging around the
wetland.
32. Buffer Establishment
For areas where seeding or buffer establishment is needed either because the buffer has
been disturbed (e.g. temporarily disturbed during grading of a development site)or it-is
a buffer establishment
and maintenance plan must be developed. This can include the current BWSR or
Mn/DOT guidelines regarding planting of native species on wetland replacement sites.
Revegetation with native plants is required around wetland buffers, when disturbed. If the
wetland buffer is not disturbed as a result of development, construction, or other activity,
the existing natural vegetation shall be considered acceptable. This exception does not
apply to wetland buffers that receive replacement credit as part of an approved
replacement plan.
For projects that require buffer establishment, a buffer vegetation establishment and
management plan must be submitted for review and approval by the City. The buffer will
need to meet the City's performance standards. Information about what needs to be
included in this plan and the performance standards are in included in Appendix F.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Tab stops: Not
at 0"
3. Buffers around Mitigation- Replacement Wetlands Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Buffers will be required to be established around wetland miter- replacement sites. If
the wetland mitigation replacement is proposed to be an expansion of an existing
wetland, the buffer width required for the existing wetland will be the required buffer
width of the mitigates- replacement area, except as noted below. If the wetland
mitigation replacement is a stand -alone site, the buffer width will be based on the
required buffer width of the wetland being impacted. except as noted below::
or upland buffers of replacement wetlands, the minimum average upland buffer Formatted: No underline, Font color: Auto,
width must following the standards as required by Mn Rule 8420.0522. Subpt. 6, Highlight
as amended Formatted: List Paragraph, Bulleted Level: 2
Aligned at: 0.79" Indent at: 1.04"
Comment (3C3]: WCA requirement
4. Storm Water Pre Treatment Formatted: Highlight
Storm water can have a detrimental impact on wetlands. To alleviate the sediment and
nutrient loading such input places on wetlands, this plan includes various levels of storm
water pretreatment as follows:
Preserve: Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required, consider diversion if
possible
Page 24
1 eeember;20070ctober 2012
Manage 1: Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required
Manage 2: Sediment pretreatment required
Manage 3: Pretreatment to NPDES standards (per Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency rules) is required if these standards apply to the project
The above requirements are left somewhat open as to the particular method selected for
each case. This will allow some flexibility, especially to incorporate new technologies
and techniques. Storm water ponds will be required to be placed in easements. Final
approval of treatment methods shall in all cases be left to the City Engineer.
5. Storm Water Treatment Ponds within Wetland Buffer Zones
Storm water treatment ponds within designated wetland buffer zones are becoming a
common land development practice. Although the pond compromises wetland buffer
area, the construction of a pond provides storm water treatment where suspended solids
and other pollutants settle out prior to overflowing into a wetland. A well designed and
placed treatment pond can be beneficial to the quality and integrity of the adjacent
wetland. The basin also provides additional flood control for large rain events.
The design and placement of storm water treatment ponds within wetland buffer zones
must comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan
(CSWMP) and this document concerning storm water treatment. The design guidelines
are available from the City.
If the area of a wetland buffer zone includes a storm water treatment pond, the buffer
zone must adhere to the following:
Wetland buffer must be provided between the pond and the wetland and around
the perimeter of the entire system. Wetland buffer must be a minimum 15 feet
between the NWL of the pond and wetland edge.
Only one treatment pond in the wetland buffer zone is allowed.
Buffer area must be equal to the total buffer area required for the wetland based
on the classification prescribed in Table IX -1. The storm water pond, as
measured from the Normal Water Level (N WL). itself will not count towards the
buffer area.
Infiltration basins (and similar stormwater best management practices) can be placed
within the wetland buffer at the discretion and upon approval of the City Engineer. The
surface area of the infiltration basin can be included, at the discretion and upon approval
by the City Engineer, as part of the required buffer area since its function and structure is
similar to that of the buffer. In these cases, the infiltration basin should have at least 75%
cover of vegetation.
ponds in wetland buffer zones. The treatment ponds will be considered a function of
Table-IX-1, Wetlands created as part of water quality treatment systems, are elibible for
replacement credit as per Mn Rule 8420.0526, Subpt 7.C, as amended.
Page 25
1 December 20070ctober 2012
6. Wetland Buffer Monuments
For all new and redeveloped land subsequent to passage of this planPlan, the developer
shall be responsible for the installation of monuments which mark the outer edge of the
wetland buffer zones. Buffer monuments must be indicated on the grading plan and shall
generally be placed at the intersections of lot lines and the buffer boundary. All markers
and their placement shall be per city specification or approved by the City Engineer. A
monument template is available at the City.
7. Buffers in Previously Developed Areas
In areas developed prior to the establishment of the WMP, no buffers were required.
Previously developed areas are defined as areas where final plats have been approved
before the adoption of this plan and the aecompan)in;. ordinanceprior to the adoption of
this Plan in 1998. In these areas, the implementation of buffers will be encouraged rather
than required. Education efforts of these residents and businesses will be used to
encourage buffers in these areas for both wetlands and storm water ponds. It is believed
that most Rosemount residents will respond when the benefits are understood and toward
that end this plan recommends an intensive educational effort.
Page 26
1 December 2007October 2012
h i e kq eu{ il Dhiji S� e m ®3° %f
b a)�� \,nn Q� te
g�6 §I U HI H I 3��k UH.N g{� %ix E� x
E E 2\ ■\k G EE z\\f� ,Do
S CeE _CO ±m =m< e cc E =m
E
k7 E
i k�k mot& /Ek §G 2
E E
E 2 EE E
:.6, a
m A n 8& k I E
Cl)
k 2 k k k la) a k e ƒ 2 2 2 a k
2 8 I E k E E
E k k 2 2 2
2 r k G 2 S #03 2 R in 2
g
rr
2
2 /,f 4 =F 7 E
f /7 o f
k �k\ k Uk/ k
t:lo o f 22 c -0 s#
2 E 2 in
a i§f
2$ j �2 ƒ) k /2 3 k 2
i. a)
E a
OS j
2 0
4-
E 7 k
c
2
.0 74- EO
2 .D
C 222[
§2�
w a a.) -o tE
O k W ��fU
ƒf .E
r %@$,M
E _co
E ƒ m
cc0)-
0
»7
Z ri g�
E VC
k a,o—
c5 e
7 2
0_ a. 2
-o
E Cr
C
:a e2 z
sec E
E
f 2 c
Q
2
x
xc
E c
k (0
c
X. Wetland Replacement
Subject to an approved sequencing evaluation,ithe applicant will need toshall provide a wetland Formatted: No underline, Font color: Auto, replacement plan to account for the proposed wetland impacts{ Impacts due to development or Highlight
other construction activity are regulated under the WCA. In terms of impact mitigation, the Comment [)C4]: WCA requirement
WCA serves as a baseline for evaluation of impacts and associated wetland replacement plans.
This Plan specifies guidelines for City Staff and Commission /Council review and
1 recommendations for individual wetlands to insure resources allocation is optimized. -The
guidelines are as follows:
Preserve: Wetlands under this category shall receive the maximum amount of protection
under this plan. Impacts will be allowed only under extreme hardship. Replacement is
required at a 3:1 ratio. For project specific replacement with a minimum of 1.5 acres of
New Wetland Credit (NWC) Wetland Replacement Credit and a maximum of 1.5 acres
of Public Value Credit (PVC) Upland Buffer Credit shall replacefof every acre impacted.
Manage 11: Mitigation of wetlands in this category will be at a minimum 2:1 ratio_ For
proiect specific replacement, a minimum of lacre of Wetland Replacement Credit and a
maximum of lacre of Upland Buffer Credit shall replace every acre impacted. with 1 acre
of N WC minimum and 1 acre of PVC maximum for every acre impacted. Additional
mitigation may be required by the WCA in MR 8120Mn Rule 8420.
Manage 1112: Mitigation of wetlands in this category will be at a minimum 2:1 ratio. For
proiect specific replacement, a minimum of lacre of Wetland Replacement Credit and a
maximum of lacre of Upland Buffer Credit shall replace every acre impacted. with 1
acre of NWC minimum and 1 acre of PVC maximum. Additional mitigation may be
required by the WCA in MR 8120 Mn Rule 8420.
Manage 1143: Mitigation of wetlands in this category will be at a minimum 2:1 ratio. For
proiect specific replacement, a minimum of lacre of Wetland Replacement Credit and a
maximum of lacre of Upland Buffer Credit shall replace every acre impacted. with 1
acre of NWC minimum and 1 acre of PVC maximum. WCA Sequencing flexibility is
applicable for these wetlands. Additional mitigation may be required by the WCA in
MR0Mn Rule 8420.
The City has a goal of no net loss of wetland within its political boundary. therefore replacement
for wetland impacts must be sited within the City limits. unless otherwise authorized by the City.
=The wetland replacement application must contain a narrative
that evaluates the wetland replacement siting prioritization through the siting sequence to the
point of the chosen wetland replacement plan. The wetland replacement siting priority :,hall beis
as follows:
1. Wetland replacement within the project site;
Page 29
1 December 2007October 2012
2. Wetland replacement within the same City subwatershed drainage area as the
impacted wetland
3. Wetland replacement within the City;:
4. Wetland replacement through a BWSR approved wetland hank within the major
watershed. The use of wetland banking must be approved by City Council and will
only be considered if Items 1 -4 are deemed unfeasible.
e Wetland
replacement in the form of a withdrawal of available wetland credits from a State approved
wetland bank site. as per Mn Rule 8420.0522. as amended, shall be allowed at the discretion of
the City of Rosemount.
As of the date of this amendment, there are no wetland bank sites within the City of Rosemount.
A goal of the City is to identify, evaluate. and pursue wetland bank sites within the City. As
wetlands are assessed using the newly incorporated MnRAM. potential wetland restoration
opportunities will be identified that could be utilized as wetland bank sites.
In the event that project- specific wetland replacement fails, the applicant shall be responsible for
proposing and developing an alternative plan that fulfills the requirements of the approved
wetland replacement plan. The City may provide additional input or require alternative
replacement strategies that ensure the requirements of the replacement plan (WCA) are met and
that the alternative plans meet the intent of the WMP. These alternatives will be developed on a
case -by -case basis and at the discretion of the City.
Page 30
December 2007October 2012
XI. Replacement Wetland Construction Certification and Wetland Monitoring
1A11 replacement wetlands must be certified by the City of Rosemout, as per Mn Rule 8420.0800, Formatted: No underline, Font color: Auto,
prior to the start of the wetland monitoring period. Wetland monitoring is required for Highlight
replacement wetlands for a period of five years, or as required as per Mn Rule 8420, as amended. Comment (3C5j: WCA requirement
City staff coordinates the monitoring for all wetland replacement within the City of Rosemount.
Monitoring includes actively managing the replacement site to ensure that vegetation is
becoming established, erosion problem areas are stabilized, hydrology criteria are being met, and
any other activities to ensure the wetland replacement goals are met. The Menitering-monitoring
requirements as per Mn Rule 8420.0810, as amended, are included
by reference in this Plan.
Performance standards for replacement wetlands will be evaluated on a per- project basis by the
City based on the performance standards outlined in MR 8420.0528. Replacement Plan
Applications must contain a vegetation establishment and management plan for all wetland
replacement sites. The establishment and management plan must include performance standards
for vegetation establishment that ensure the dominance of native wetland species appropriate for
the landscape conditions of the replacement site. The City, at its discretion, may require
performance standards that differ from the applicant's plan if the City determines the applicant's
plan does not meet the intent of the WMP, the WCA, or may not adequately replace the lost
functions and values of the wetland that is proposed to be impacted.
For projects that require wetland buffer establishment. a buffer vegetation establishment and Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
management plan must be submitted for review and approval by the City. The buffer will need
to meet the City's performance standards. Information about what needs to be included in this,
plan and the performance standards are in included in Appendix F.
In accordance with Mn Rule 8420.0522, Subpt. 9. A-a letter of creditfinancial assurance. in an
amount and from a source acceptable to the Citv of Rosemout, is required with the Subdivision
or Development Agreement to ensure the proper establishment of the mitigation site(s). Twenty
percent of this hondOne filth of the financial- assurance shall be returned to the developer after
with City approval of each yearly monitoring report showing satisfactory vegetation
establishment. The final retained amount of the assurance will be returned upon issuance of the
Certificate of Compliance by the City, indicating successful replacement of wetland functions
and values and fulfillment of any and all conditions of the approved wetland replacement plan.
The applicant must request the final review of the replacement and demonstrate that the
replacement site(s) are eligible for receipt of the Certification of Compliance.
Page 31
December 20070ctober 2012
XII. New Wetlands
"New wetlands" include wetlands deliberately created where none existed at the time this plan
was adopted. This might include wetlands created as part of a wetland mitigation/creation
project or as a result of blocked drainage patterns. Wet areas created by human activity
1 "incidental wetlands") as specified in M to Mn Rules 8420.0122.0105 not intended to
produce wetland shall not become part of this plan.
Because newly created wetlands take time to develop into functioning wetlands, the functional
assessment, if done immediately, would not provide a reasonable indicator of the quality of the
wetland as intended. Rather, a functional based categorization should be undertaken when the
wetland has reached the fully developed functionality intended. Normally it could take 5 -10
years for a created wetland to become established. A full functional assessment will be done 5
years after its creation and scores stored in the wetlands database. Upon review of the new
wetland's progress and score, the City Engineer will place it in the category appropriate to the
score. The City Engineer may place a created wetland in any category that is appropriate before
the functionality has reached the level required by this plan.
Page 32
December 2007Octoher 2012
XIII. Other Programs
A. Wetland Health Evaluation Program
The Dakota County Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WHEP) is a joint research and
educational project sponsored by the Dakota County Environmental Education Program,
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Minnesota Pollution Agency,
and the Cities of Dakota County. The goals of the project program are to provide
meaningful data on wetland health to local governments, foster public awareness of
wetland value and health, and create positive partnerships between citizens and their local
government in addressing natural resource issues.
Rosemount has participated in the program since 1998 and has had much success in
doing so. The project provides City Staff with technical data on monitored City wetlands
and it offers a great opportunity for public involvement. WHEP has attracted national
and local attention for its innovative and unique approach to addressing wetland health.
When feasible and appropriate, wetland replacement sites may be chosen to be monitored
by WHEP. The results of the monitoring program can be incorporated into the overall
determination of whether the wetland replacement site successfully replaced the lost
functions and values of an impacted wetland. The data and trends gathered from the
WHEP program for a replacement site can be incorporated into the mitigation monitoring
reports; however, the WHEP data cannot be used as a substitute for the mitigation
monitoring reports as per Mn Rule 8420.
B. Department of Natural Resources Greenway Project
The Northern Dakota County Greenway Project has identified quality natural areas,
prioritized restoration efforts, and will empower landowners to create a viable suburban
greenway corridor in northern Dakota County. Detailed natural resource inventories
show multiple potential green corridors that can provide a natural, ecological connection
between Lilydale Regional Park, Eagan's Lebanon Hills, Dodge Nature Center in Sunfish
Lake and West Saint Paul, Marcott Lakes in Inver Grove Heights, and the Pine Bend
Bluffs on the Mississippi River. These green corridors can provide tremendous wildlife
habitat and create a green pathway across the county. A map of the greenway corridor is
can he found on Dakota Countv's website.
C. CAMP Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program
The Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) is a Metropolitan Council of
Environmental Services (MCES) managed program where citizen volunteers monitor the
water quality of local surface waters. On a biweekly basis (April- October), City
volunteer groups collect a surface water sample for laboratory analysis of total
phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and chlorophyll -a; obtains a Secchi transparency
measurement; and provides some user perception information about the lake's physical
and recreational condition. The main purpose of CAMP is to provide water resource
personnel with water quality information that will not only help them properly manage
these resources, but will also help document water quality impacts and trends. An added
benefit of the program is the volunteers' increased awareness of their lakes' condition,
Page 33
December 2007October 2012
which has fostered local efforts to protect lakes and promote support for lake
management.
At this time, the City of Rosemount does not participate in this program. In the future,
the City Staff will review the costs and benefits of the program and determine if the
City's involvement in this program will be beneficial.
Page 34
December 2007October 2012