Loading...
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