Loading...
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