HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Amendment4ROSEMOUN 1'
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )ss.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
Linda Jentink, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24- day of May, 2005.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTED HEARING NOTICE
FOR
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE WETLAND PROTECTION PLAN AMENDMENT
I am a United States Citizen and the duly qualified Clerk of the City of Rosemount,
Minnesota.
On May 2, 2005, acting on behalf of the said City, I posted at the City Hall, 2875 145th
Street West the attached notice of public hearing regarding the proposed Comprehensive
Wetland Protection Plan Amendment.
inda Jentink ,Qr Jerk
City of Rosemount
Dakota County, Minnesota
Notary Public
H 1WPDATAIAFFMAIL\Comprehensive WetlandProtectianPlanAmendment2ndPoshng .doc
SPIRIT OF PRIDE AND PROGRESS
2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 651- 423 -4411 TDD/TTY 651- 423 -6219 Fax 651- 322 -2694
www 0 rosemount.mn.us
ROSEMOUNT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota
will meet at 7:30 o'clock p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, Tuesday, May 17, 2005 in
the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, to present the
Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Amendment.
The City of Rosemount developed a Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan
(CWMP) in 1998 to establish wetland management strategies and objectives in relation
to land development. The Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Amendment
includes new language and policies that have been developed to address wetland
issues affecting land development with respect to the needs and concerns of the
community, such as, wetland conservation, conservation of natural areas, and public
education The plan is a collaboration of regulatory policy derived from both state and
local jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting and preserving the water resources within
the Rosemount community.
Person(s) who wish to offer testimony or evidence about the proposed Plan Amendment
will be heard Written or oral materials will be considered.
Dated this 2 day of May, 2005.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
PUBLIC NOTICE
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Linda Jentink
City Clerk
City of Rosemount
Dakota County, Minnesota
Auxiliary aids and services are available Please contact Linda Jentink at (651)322-
2003, or TDD No. (651)423 -6219, no later than May 12, 2005 to make a request.
Examples of auxiliary aids or services may include: sign language interpreter, assistive
listening kit, accessible meeting location, etc.
SPIRIT OF PRIDE AND PROGRESS
2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 651- 423 -4411 TDD /TTY 651- 423 -6219 Fax 651- 322 -2694
www, ci. ros em o un t. m n. us
The Rosemount Town Pages
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
Chad Richardson, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is an authonzed
agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper, known as The
Rosemount Town Pages, and has full knowledge of the facts which are
stated below:
(A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting
qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statutes
311A.02, 331A.07 d other app a Laws, as amended
(B The printed �l 111 to
a� �a �s
*et n.- sett ra t i
It. SS V avert Warn) a1
which is attached, was cut from the columns of sal ewspaper, and was
panted and published once each week for successive
as first published on Thursday, the
tVM day of
2005 and was thereafter printed an ubhshed on every
Thursday, to And including Thursday, the day of
2005; and printed below is a copy of the
lower case al abet from A to 6, both inclusive, which is hereby
acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used m the composition and
publication of the notice:
abcxlefghrlklmnopgrstuvwxyz
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this
2005.
Notary aua Ic
AFFIDAVIT
DAWN M. SMITH
NOTARY PUBLIC- MINNESOTA
My
Commission Expires Jan 31, 2010
FE
First Insertion: tii/DJ(G
File (n�� t_
inches, 9ain= a4, ire
1 Additional Insertions: 1 I
inches, @$tin= U Itbo
Affidavit fee
Total `iR I
PUBLIC NOTICE
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC !TEARING ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE WETLAND MANAGE.
MENT PLAN AMENDMENT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the C'ty Council
of the City of Rosemount Minnesota will meet 4 7 30
o'clock p na or as soon thereafter as possible, Tuesday,
May 17, 2005 in the Council Chambers of the City
Hall, 2875 145th Street West, to present “he
Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan
Amendment
The City of Rosemount developed a Comprehensive
Wetland Management Plan (CWMP) u71998 to estab-
lish wetland management strategies and bblecnves in
relation to land development The Comprehensive
Wetland Management Plan Amendment includes new,
language and policies that have been developed to
address wetland issues affecting land development
wtth respect to the needs and concerns of the commu-
nity, such as, wetland conservation, conservation of
natural areas, and public education The plan is a col-
laboration of regulatory policy denved from bout sate
and local 3unsdmtion for the purpose of protecting and
presenting the water resources wimm the Rosemount
community
Person(s) who wash to offer testimony or evidence
about the proposed Plan Amendment will be heard
Wnieen or oral materials will be commered
_Dated this 2nd day of May
.,.a! SiP2'
BY DRDEROPTHE CI'PlCOCJNCIL
'u UP) 11-1 ,mss <re_Llada lenn of eamClert
ounty, y Mir ah
r esota
tern vi t^ C baldte coun t 3Gesota
Aar,Gasy mat and sentient are available Please con
tact Linda Jenni& at 20193, or TDD No
(651)423 -6219, no later than May 12, 2005 to make a
request Examples of auxdmry rods or serwmt may
lne'lude sign language interpreter, assishve i
lstening
ht, uccesstle meeting location, eta
"516 5/13 l t
l
AGENDA ITEM: Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan
Amendment
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan;
Memo summarizing Plan changes
APPROVED B
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt the Amended Comprehensive Wetland
Management Plan
ACTION:
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 17, 2005
ISSUE:
Consider adopting the Amended Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan
BACKGROUND:
The City of Rosemount developed a Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan
(WMP) in 1998 to establish wetland management strategies and objectives in relation
to land development Wetland Management Plans are tools used by local governments
to help implement regulations designed to meet the needs of the community and the
State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA)
The 1998 plan was developed with participation of the Department of Natural
Resources, the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Board of
Water and Soil Resources, City staff, and members of the community The information
within the document includes wetland functional assessments and classifications,
management strategies and policy, and wetland impact and replacement requirements.
The Plan is designed to maximize the benefit that surface waters can provide to the
environment and community.
Past and present land development has influenced the administration of the WMP since
the adoption of the plan in 1998 Since then, the Wetland Conservation Act was
updated and 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 become concerned with the ability to
enforce such administration without a policy and procedure adopted as ordinance by
City Council. In response, staff has elected to amend the 1998 WMP to address the
outstanding and recurring issues associated with wetland impacts and management.
The purpose of this plan amendment is to address the following issues:
Wetland buffer zones and related policies
Location of storm water ponds within buffers
Public education
Wetland management classification appeals
Wetland mitigation regulations and procedure
The amendment also adds new policies to address the protection and preservation
issues of the higher quality wetlands The attached memo summarizes the proposed
Plan changes.
City staff formed a wetland task force consisting of members of the community to
discuss the policies proposed within the Plan. A draft Plan was prepared based on the
discussions of this group The Plan was submitted to BWSR and other agencies for
review and comment and changes were made based on their comments.
SUMMARY:
The Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Amendment has been developed to
address policy issues that have been brought to the City's attention since the Plan was
adopted in 1998 The Plan was written in recognition of the Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) and the City of Rosemount's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan
and shall serve as a supplement to these documents for land development. The Plan is
a collaboration of regulatory policy derived from both state and local jurisdiction for the
purpose of protecting and preserving the water resources within the Rosemount
community.
Committee Comment/Suggestion
City Staff Recommendations
1.
Buffers should be placed in outlots or
easements
The Plan has been amended to state that
wetlands and their buffers shall be contained in
conservation easements.
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of Rosemount
From: Andrea Moffatt, WSB Associates, Inc.
Date: May 1I, 2005
Re: Amendments to the Wetland Management Plan
WSB Project No. 1556 -20
As you are aware, the City Staff and the Wetland Committee have been in the process of
updating the policies within the Wetland Management Plan. The City's Wetland Management
Plan was adopted in 1998 and was one of the first plans to be developed in the Metro area. Since
that time, a number of policy issues that needed clarification as to the implementation of the
Wetland Management Plan have arisen.
The issues that have been addressed as part of the amendment process are related to the
following:
Implementation, uses, and establishment of wetland buffers
Clarification on the wetland permitting process
Development of an appeals process for the wetland management classifications
Implementation of storm water management for wetlands
In an effort to address these issues, the Wetland Committee was convened to provide input into
the amendment of the Plan. The Committee met on August 24, 2004 to discuss these issues.
Additional discussions with Council Member Shoe Comgan have also taken place to update the
Plan. Based on this meeting, the Wetland Committee offered the following suggestions to the
above mentioned issues
C.\Documents and Settings\cad\Local Settings \'temporary Internet Files \OLK7D\MEMO 051105- hmcc,doc
Committee Comment/Suggestion
City Staff Recommendations
2.
The Committee did not express strong
opinions on buffer averaging However,
some members indicated that buffer
averaging should not be used on Manage I
or Preserve wetlands unless the project is a
linear utility or road project.
The Plan has been amended to state that buffer
averaging is allowed for all wetlands and will
be reviewed on a project -by- project basis. A
30' minimum buffer is allowed on P and M1
wetlands. A 15' minimum buffer is allowed on
M2 and M3 wetlands. Additionally, an
exception to the minimum buffer standards can
be granted for linear public road projects on
existing roads
3
Trails can be allowed within buffers
provided that the total buffer is
implemented around the wetland. One
comment indicated the trails should not be
allowed within Preserve wetland buffers.
Most of this language has been incorporated
into the Plan. However, the language to
exclude trails from Preserve wetlands has not
been included.
4.
The Committee suggested that the location
and size of the buffer monuments be
reviewed.
This has not been addressed in the plan, but
will be incorporated into the City
specifications.
5.
Planting of vegetation or landscaping
within the buffer by existing homeowners
should not be allowed
This language has been incorporated into the
plan.
6.
Storm water ponds could be allowed within
buffers
Storm water ponds will be allowed within
buffers provided that there is only one pond
within the buffer, the pond and wetland are
separated by 15 feet, and the pond does not
count towards the buffer width requirement.
7.
Implementation of buffers within
previously developed areas should continue
to be implemented through education.
The plan has been clarified to state that in areas
previously platted before the adoption of the
plan in 1998, buffers are not required but will
be encouraged through public education
efforts.
8.
The Committee indicated that they would
like the wetlands re- evaluated within the
City Discussion related to re- evaluating
all wetlands at once, completing the
evaluation on a yearly rotating basis until
all wetlands are reviewed, or by having the
wetlands evaluated as part of development.
The plan amendment does include a
requirement for wetlands to be evaluated with
development. Due to limited staff time and
resources, the re- evaluation of all wetlands
within the City is not included as part of the
plan amendment Should the re- evaluation of
all wetlands within the City be identified as a
pnonty, it would be appropriate to identify
funding in future budget cycles to complete
this re- evaluation.
May 11, 2005
Page 2 of 4
C \Documents and Settings \ead \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK7D MEMO- 051105 -hmcc doc
Committee Comment/Suggestion
Cit Staff Recommendations
9. Wetlands created as part of mitigation
should be evaluated.
This evaluation is currently taking place as per
the Wetland Conservation Act. The City
evaluates the mitigation sites twice per year for
five years to determine if the site is developing
wetland characteristics.
10. Wetlands that were not impacted, but are
within a developed area since the plan was
adopted should be evaluated.
See Item #8.
11. The committee suggested implementing a
new policy requiring developers to provide
GIS information associated with wetland
impacts and replacement
This is already being implemented by the City
and has been incorporated into the plan.
May II, 2005
Page 3 of 4
Other changes have been made to the plan that were not necessarily suggested by the wetland
committee. These changes relate to administrative changes and /or proposed policy changes to
bring the plan up -to -date with current wetland management in the Metro area as follows:
An appeal process to re- evaluate the classification of a wetland has been included in
the Plan. This re- evaluation would use the RoseWFA function and value assessment
in order to be able to adequately compare assessment data.
The Plan has been amended to clearly define the wetland permitting process.
The Plan has been amended to include a 3:1 replacement ratio for Preserve
wetlands. This is more stringent than the Wetland Conservation Act. Some other
cities have opted for increasing the replacement ratio on their Preserve wetlands.
A 30' structure setback from the buffer edge has been incorporated into the plan.
This will allow a usable yard space to be incorporated into development.
A policy has been added to clarify the required buffer widths around mitigation sites.
If the mitigation is proposed to be an expansion of an existing wetland, the required
buffer width is that of the adjacent existing wetland. If the mitigation site is a stand-
alone site, the buffer width will be based on the required buffer width of the wetland
being impacted.
Language has been added stating that exempt and non wetlands will not become part
of the policies of this plan.
Language has been added that states that Wetland Replacement Applications for
projects that impact more than 10,000 sf of wetland will be brought to City Council
for approval. Decisions regarding Wetland Replacement Applications with impacts
C \Documents and Setnngs\cad\ ocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files \OLK7D\ MEMO -051105 -hmcc doc
May 11, 2005
Page 4 of 4
that are 10,000 sf or less and Exemption Applications can be made at the Staff level if
it is determined that the project is non controversial.
If you have any questions, please call me at (763)287 -7196.
C:\Documents and Settings\cad\Local settings \Temporary Internet F,les\OLK7D\MEMO- 051105- hmcc.doc
K ROSEMOUNT
Page 1 of 29
May 2005
PUBLIC WORKS 1 ENGINEERING
Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan
ADOPTED 1998
AMENDED FEBRUARY 1999
AMENDED MAY 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE NO.
I. Executive Summary
Page 3
II Introduction and Purpose
Page 4
III. Definitions and References
Page 7
IV. Acknowledgements
Page 10
V. Wetland Regulations
Page 11
VI. Technical Elements
Page 16
VII Functional Assessment
Page 18
VIII. Wetland Classification
Page 19
IX. Wetland Management Policies
Page 20
X. Wetland Replacement
Page 26
XI. Wetland Monitonng
Page 27
XII. New Wetlands
Page 28
Page 29
XIII. Other Programs
LIST OF TABLES
Table IX -1 Wetland Management Categones and Descriptions
Page 25
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Wetland Map and Assessment Results
Appendix B RoseWFA (Wetland Functional Assessment)
Appendix C Surface Water Management Ordinance /Erosion Control Policy
Appendix D Conservation Easement
Appendix E Wetland Monitoring
Appendix F DNR Greenway Map
Page 2 of 29
May 2005
L Executive Summary
The Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (WMP) 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 is
contained in Appendix A. The wetland inventory and assessment completed for each wetland is
in Appendix B. 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.
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 for 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 become concerned with the ability to enforce
such administration without a policy and procedure adopted as ordinance by City Council In
response, staff has elected to amend the 1998 WMP to address the outstanding and recurring
issues associated with wetland impacts and management. New policies and provisions were
discussed with the wetland committee and City staff.
Page 3 of 29
May 2005
II. Introduction and Purpose
The City of Rosemount's Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (WMP) was developed in
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 authonty 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, charactenstics, 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
Page 4 of 29
May 2005
To develop and implement a plan of action to promote sound management of water
resources in the City
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 comdor. 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 pnme 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.
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 appropnate 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, 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
Location of storm water ponds within buffers
Public education
Wetland management classification appeals
Wetland mitigation regulations and procedure
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
Page 5 of 29
May 2005
the City of Rosemount's 2020 Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive Stormwater Management
Plan. This document is wntten in recognition of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and shall
serve as a supplement to this legislation.
Page 6 of 29
May 2005
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 terrestrial areas of native 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.
City: The incorporated City of Rosemount.
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
hydrological characteristics, obstruct flow patterns, change the wetland boundary, or convert the
wetland to a non wetland It does not include posts and pilings for linear projects such as
bridges, elevated walkways, or power line structures, or structures traditionally built on pilings
such as docks and boathouses. It does include posts and pilings that result in bringing the
wetland into a non aquatic use or significantly altering the wetland's functions and values, such
as the construction of office and industrial developments, parking structures, restaurants, stores,
hotels, multifamily housing projects, and similar structures It does not include slash or woody
vegetation, if the slash or woody vegetation originated from vegetation growing in the wetland
and does not impair the flow or circulation of water or the reach of the wetland.
Growing Season: The portion of the year when soil temperature at 19.7 inches below the soil
surface is higher than biological zero (5° C). For ease of determination this penod can be
approximated by the number of frost free days.
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 penodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content.
Page 7 of 29
May 2005
Impact: A loss in the quantity, quality, or biological diversity of a wetland caused by draining
or filling or excavating.
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 nght 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.
Wetlands:
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).
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).
Page 8 of 29
May 2005
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).
Cowardin, et at, 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 1.0 May (1996).
National Wetland lnventory maps United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Page 9 of 29
May 2005
IV. Acknowledgements
The Rosemount WMP was developed with input from a wetland committee. The members of
this committee are outlined below:
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 Chair Person
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 10 of 29
May 2005
V. Wetland regulations
Wetland regulation involves federal, state, and local agencies including the Board of Soil and
Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources, Watershed Districts, Army Corps of
Engineers, and Local Government Units. Notification is provided to each agency in the event of
wetland related impacts. The following items descnbe the role and responsibility of each
agency:
A. US Army Corps of Engineers
The US Army Corp of Engineers (COE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill matenals
to wetlands and other water bodies through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act provided that
there is a surface water connection to navigable waters. Any impact to a navigable water or
wetland or impact that is connected to navigable waters, including filling, draining or
excavating 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 (MPCA) may be involved in certifying the COE permit. For more
information about the COE regulations, the area COE project manger can be contacted at
(651) 290 -5015 or information can be obtained from the COE website at
www.mvp.usace.anny.mil.
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 Inventory maps. The DNR has jurisdiction
over Public Water and wetlands to the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW) or to the top
of -bank for streams The OHW is determined by the DNR. Any impact to a Public Water or
Wetland may require a pemmt from the DNR. The DNR Area Hydrologist can be contacted
for more information at (651) 772 -7910 or information can be obtained from the DNR
website at www.dnr.state mn.us /waters
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. Sequencing mitigation requirements of Minn. Rule 7050.0186
apply to all wetland alterations that are permitted or certified by the MPCA as described
below.
The NPDES /SDS permit program is a delegated federal permit issued under the
responsibilities and authorities contained in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115 Minnesota
Rule 7050.0186 requires a sequencing evaluation to avoid, minimize, and mitigate wetland
impacts in the issuance ofNPDES /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 MN Rule 7050.0186 must be demonstrated. For the purposes of
the MPCA NPDES permit, de minimis determinations by another permitting agency that
Page 11 of 29
May 2005
address the project impacts are recognized by the MPCA. However, a non jurisdictional
determination by another permitting agency does not address project impacts and therefore
does require the project proposer to demonstrate that it meets 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 US Corps of
Engineers 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 reviewed all federal permits including Clean Water Act Section 404 permit
applications for compliance with state water quality standards pnmanly contained in
Minnesota Rule 7050. The MPCA can approve, deny, or waive 401 certification If denied,
the federal permit, usually the US Corps of Engineers 404 permit, cannot be issued. The
MPCA is currently not implementing 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 of complying with all water quality standards and requirements
contained in Minnesota Rules 7050. In addition, this waiver action does not waive 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.
D. Local Government Unit (LGU)
The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) is a state law that was passed in 1991 and has been
subsequently amended (Minn. Laws CH 354, Minn. Statute 103G.222 -2373 and other
scattered sections). The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) publishes MN Rule
8420 in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act laws. BWSR's role is to assist the
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
equal public value.
Page 12 of 29
May 2005
1. Wetland Impact and Replacement Application
When filling 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 as a part of a project, an application must be
completed by the project proposer and submitted to the City. These applications
are contained on BWSR's web site at
http: /www.bwsr.state.mn.us /wetlands /index.html. If wetland impacts are
Page 13 of 29
May 2005
unavoidable, a wetland mitigation plan must accompany the application as
outlined within this plan. An application fee may apply.
2. Wetland Delineation
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. Delineations are to be performed by a wetland
professional who has been trained in wetland delineations. Wetland delineations
must be performed during the growing season, and will be considered incomplete
if received at a time of year not conducive for proper review. Delineations are
valid for five years.
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 pnor to plan
development and /or application submittal.
3. Wetland Sequencing
Sequencing must be provided as a part of an application for wetlands categorized
as Preserve, Manage I, and Manage II. Manage III wetlands are applicable for
sequencing flexibility when impacts are proposed. An applicant who proposes to
impact a wetland identified in the WMP must adhere to the wetland Sequencing
Standards outlined in Minn Rules 8420.0520 in the WCA. The applicant may
submit a sequencing evaluation with the wetland impact application or apply for a
preliminary sequencing determination from the City. The determination of a
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.
4. Wetland Replacement
Once sequencing has been completed in conformance with this plan 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 the Wetland Replacement section of this plan.
Applications can be found at BWSR's web -site
http: /www.bwsr.state.mn.us /wetlands /index.html.
Wetland replacement should be located within the project site. If this is not
feasible, replacement locations should be within the same subwatershed within
the City. It is strongly encouraged that wetlands categorized as Manage II or
Manage III within this plan are used for wetland mitigation when feasible 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
8420.0541
Page 14 of 29
May 2005
Wetland replacement may be completed in the form of New Wetland Credit
(NWC) or through a combination of NWC and Public Value Credit (PVC) as
provided in the Wetland Replacement section of this plan. For a comprehensive
descnption of NWC and PVC, see Minn. Rules 8420.0541 in the Wetland
Conservation Act.
5. Replacement for Road 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 authonty are
eligible to be replaced by BWSR as outlined in Minn. Rules 8420.0540 Subp. 4
(5) (6) and Subp 5. Impacts need to be avoided and minimized to the greatest
extent feasible. Notification to BWSR of the intent to use BWSR mitigation is
required through application process and/or annual reporting by the City.
Applications can be found at BWSR's web -site
http: /www bwsr.state mn.us /wetlandshndex.html. BWSR mitigation is not
eligible for new streets associated with land development.
6. WCA Exemptions
The WCA exemption standards are covered in MN Rule 8420.0122 and are
included by reference to this plan. Wetlands that are exempt per the WCA shall
not be regulated by the policies within this Plan.
E. Wetland Application Process and Timeline
When filling or draining any wetlands or excavating in the permanently or semi permanently
flooded areas of a Type 3, 4, or 5 wetland or excavating greater than 6 feet for any wetland is
anticipated as part of a project, an application must be completed by the project proposer and
submitted to the City. These applications are available at BWSR's web -site:
http. /www.bwsr state mn.us /wetlands /index.html.
If wetland impact is less than 10,000 square feet, the City will send a summary and Notice of
Application of the project within 10 days of receipt of a complete application to the TEP, the
DNR, the Watershed Management Organization, the COE and anyone who has requested this
information. If wetland impact is greater than 10,000 square feet, the City will send a Notice
of Application and copy of the application within 10 days of receipt of the application to the
TEP, Watershed Management Organization, the DNR, COE, the Watershed Management
Organization, and anyone who has requested such information. The TEP, Watershed
District, DNR, COE and other agencies shall have between 15 -30 calendar days to comment
on the project.
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
dunng the preliminary plat process. Once a decision is made, the City will mail a Notice of
Decision and Findings and Conclusions 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. 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.
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 8420.0250 can be consulted for further information on appeals.
Determinations on Wetland Replacement Plans that impact greater than 10,000 sf of wetland
will be made by the City Council. Determination on Wetland Replacement Plans that impact
10,000 sf or less of wetland or Exemption Determinations can be made by City Staff, unless
it is deemed necessary to bring the application to the City Council.
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 15 of 29
May 2005
VI. Technical Elements
Page 16 of 29
May 2005
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 spnng, 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
Vanous 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 of 29
May 2005
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 monitonng 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
monitonng information provided to the City.
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 according to a modified version of the Minnesota Routine
Assessment Method (MnRAM) referred to as the Rosemount Wetland Functional Assessment
(RoseWFA) worksheet (Appendix B) It was developed over in 1997 and in consultation with
the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, the Minnesota Depaitment of Natural
Resources, the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Rosemount Wetland
Committee, and City staff.
Upon development of a site, the City will require that the applicant complete a re- assessment of
the wetlands using the RoseWFA. 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, which is generally May 1 October 15.
Page 18 of 29
May 2005
VIII. Wetland Classification
Wetlands are classified for management and protection based on the total score of each
functional parameter evaluated in the RoseWFA The management classifications and
corresponding functional scores are as follows:
Page 19 of 29
May 2005
Preserve: Wetlands placed into the preserve category received the highest functional
score ranging between 425 -660.
Manage I: Wetlands placed into Manage I category received functional scores
between 280 -420 and were selected for the MI category due to their
special value.
Manage II: Wetlands placed into Manage II category received functional scores
between 280 -420.
Manage III: Wetlands placed into Manage III category received functional scores
between 0 -275.
In the event of a dispute concerning wetland classification, the applicant or project proposer will
be required to submit a Request 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 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. A Notice of Decision will be sent to the appealing party
and the regulatory agencies. The Notice of Decision will indicate the wetland 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 and notify the
applicant of the decision. Appeals to this decision can be made to the City Council.
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 (BMP's), 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 included in Appendix C.
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 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
Page 20 of 29
May 2005
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.
Page 21 of 29
May 2005
1. Wetland Buffer Zones
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 nutnents
Supporting and protecting fish and wildlife habitat
Encouraging the production of unique vegetation
Stabilizing water temperature
Detemng human encroachment
Dense native vegetation is the optimal condition for an effective wetland buffer zone.
Once established, activities in buffer zones 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
Manage I: 50 feet
Manage II: 30 feet
Manage 1II' 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 is in Appendix D. 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
Page 22 of 29
May 2005
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.
2. Buffer Averaging
Buffer averaging is the practice of allowing a vanable buffer width around a wetland
where the average buffer area is equal to the buffer area required for that particular
wetland management classification. Buffer averaging will be reviewed on a project -by-
project basis. When proposing buffer averaging, the project proposer or applicant must
adhere to the following:
The buffer width averaging will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis.
A minimum 30' buffer is allowed on P and M1 wetlands.
A minimum 15' buffer is allowed on M2 and M3 wetlands.
Averaged buffer acreage must be equal to or greater than the required buffer
acreage
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.
3. Buffer Establishment
For areas where seeding or buffer establishment is needed either because the buffer has
been disturbed or it is determined that the buffer will not become established on its own,
a buffer establishment 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.
4. Buffers around Mitigation Wetlands
Buffers will be required to be established around wetland mitigation sites. If the wetland
mitigation 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 mitigation area.
It the wetland mitigation is a stand -alone site, the buffer width will be based on the
required buffer width of the wetland being impacted.
Page 23 of 29
May 2005
5. Storm Water Pre Treatment
Storm water can have a detnmental 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
Manage 1: Sediment and nutnent pretreatment required
Manage 2: Sediment pretreatment required
Manage 3 No pretreatment
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. Final approval of treatment methods shall in all cases be Left to the City
Engineer.
6. 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 itself will
not count towards the buffer area.
New Wetland Credit will not be issued for the construction of storm water treatment
ponds in wetland buffer zones. The treatment ponds will be considered a function of
storm water management, applicable for issuance of Public Value Credit as outlined in
Table IX -1.
Page 24 of 29
May 2005
7. Wetland Buffer Monuments
For all new and redeveloped land subsequent to passage of this plan, the developer shall
be responsible for 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.
8. Buffers in Previously Developed Areas
In areas developed pnor 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 accompanying ordinance. 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. 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.
Mitigation
Standard
3•1 replacement ratio
with a minimum 1 5
acres of New Wetland
Credit and maximum
1 5 acres of Public
Value Credit for every
acre impacted.
2:1 replacement ratio
with a minimum of 1
acre of New Wetland
Credit and a maximum
of 1 acre of Public
Value Credit
2 1 replacement ratio
with a minimum of 1
acre of New Wetland
Credit and maximum of
1 acre of Public Value
Credit
2 replacement ratio
with a minimum of 1
acre of New Wetland
Credit and maximum of
1 acre of Public Value
Credit
Storm Water
Management
Sediment and nutrient
pretreatment required;
consider diversion if
possible
Sediment and nutrient
pretreatment required
Sediment pretreatment
required
No pretreatment
Wetland Buffer
Requirements
75 feet
30' minimum if buffer
averaging is allowed
Monuments required
50 feet
30' minimum if buffer
averaging is allowed
Monuments required
30 feet
15' minimum if buffer
averaging is allowed
Monuments required
15 feet for non-
agricultural areas only
15' is the minimum
buffer standard
Monuments not required
Management
Strategy
Maintain wetland and
existing functions,
values and wildlife
habitat.
Apply strict avoidance
standards.
Maintain wetland
without degrading
existing functions,
values and wildlife
habitat.
Sequencing is
applicable
Maintain wetland
functionality
Apply some
sequencing flexibility
Allow maximum
sequencing flexibility
a.1oog
LO
N
V
1
co
coo
0
of
N
1
01
7
0
of
N
1
01
'7
0
1
N
Management
Class
Z
al N
N
CL
G)
CO
CO
C
2
U)
m
CO
C
2
N
O)
CO
C
2
eoe
0
ct
0
E
GA
et
A�
rl ri
t
6) t
A 0
N 3
X. Wetland Replacement
Subject to an approved sequencing evaluation, the applicant will need to provide a wetland
replacement plan to account for the proposed wetland impacts Impacts due to development or
other construction activity are regulated under the WCA In terms of impact mitigation, the
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
recommendations for individual wetlands to insure resources allocation is optimized. The
guidelines are as follows:
Page 26 of 29
May 2005
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 with a minimum of 1.5 acres of New Wetland Credit (NWC) and a
maximum of 1.5 acres of Public Value Credit (PVC) for every acre impacted.
Manage I: Mitigation of wetlands in this category will be at a 2:1 ratio with 1 acre of
NWC minimum and 1 acre of PVC maximum for every acre impacted.
Manage II Mitigation of wetlands in this category will be at a 2:1 ratio with 1 acre of
NWC minimum and 1 acre of PVC maximum.
Manage III• Mitigation of wetlands in this category will be at a 2:1 ratio with 1 acre of
NWC minimum and 1 acre of PVC maximum WCA Sequencing flexibility is applicable
for these wetlands.
Actions available for mitigation credit are outlined in Minnesota Rules 8420.0541.
XI. Wetland Monitoring
Wetland monitoring is required for replacement wetlands for a period of five years. 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. Monitoring requirements
are outlined in Appendix E.
A letter of credit is required with the Subdivision or Development Agreement to ensure the
proper establishment of the mitigation site(s) Twenty percent of this bond shall be returned to
the developer with City approval of each yearly monitonng report.
Page 27 of 29
May 2005
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 pattems. Wet areas created by human activity as
specified in Minnesota Rules 8420.0122 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 appropnate before
the functionality has reached the level required by this plan.
Page 28 of 29
May 2005
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 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.
B. Department of Natural Resources Greenway Project
The Northern Dakota County Greenway Project has identified quality natural areas,
priontized restoration efforts, and will empower landowners to create a viable suburban
greenway comdor in northem 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 attached in Appendix
F.
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, 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 29 of 29
May 2005