The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.a. Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Update and Wetland Ordinance Text Amendment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council Regular Meeting: October 5, 2021 AGENDA ITEM: Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Update and Wetland Ordinance Text Amendment AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Anthony Nemcek, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. : 7.a. ATTACHMENTS: Excerpt from March 30, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes, Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Update; Wetland Overlay Ordinance APPROVED BY: LJM RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Motion to approve the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Update. 2. Motion to approve a zoning ordinance text amendment to Section 11-7-3: Wetland Overlay Regulations. SUMMARY The City Council is being asked to consider an update to the City’s Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (CWMP) and a text amendment to update a section of the zoning ordinance that regulates activities that may impact wetlands. The CWMP was originally approved in 1998 to preserve, protect, enhance, or mitigate impacts to wetlands. The City has updated the plan 5 times since its original approval. Staff is recommending the plan be updated again to incorporate revisions to the Wetland Conservation Act and to include lessons learned since the last update in 2013. In addition to the plan update, staff is also asking the Council to review a text amendment to Section 11-7-3: Wetland Overlay Regulations to give the City the Authority to enforce the regulations in the CWMP as currently that section of the zoning ordinance is severely outdated and obsolete. The Plan underwent a 60-day review by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), which determined the update is considered minor. This item is being reviewed during a public hearing before the Council as it was only after BWSR deemed the update minor that a public hearing could be held. The Planning Commission reviewed the plan update and text amendment at its meeting in March and recommends approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed plan update and text amendment at its meeting on March 23, 2021. The commission asked about what the expectations were for wetland buffers. Staff described buffers as an unmowed area of native perennial vegetation. The commission also requested that the City conduct some sort of outreach and education about buffers and wetland management. The commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the plan update and the text amendment. BACKGROUND Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Update The Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan was first approved by the City in 1998. Since its original approval the plan has been updated five times to incorporate changes to the Wetland Conservation Act and also to include best practices to preserve and protect wetlands within the City of Rosemount. This 2 most recent update addresses a number of key issues, some of which are listed below: • wetland buffer regulations were expanded to cover all wetlands vs. only those associated with a zoning application, • outdated rules and language have been updated, • unnecessary or inapplicable details were removed, • wetland replacement processes have been updated to reflect staff’s experience with prior implementation. Additionally, the City’s wetland inventory was updated through this process. The biggest change is the incorporation of language from the CWMP into zoning ordinance to make the rules in the plan enforceable by the City. Wetland Overlay District Ordinance Currently the Wetland Overlay District Ordinance contains language that was adopted in 1989 and is no longer relevant. Staff has been relying on the language within the Surface Water Management section of the City Code that requires consistency with the CWMP to apply the requirements of the plan to new developments within the City. Incorporating the regulations of the CWMP into the actual zoning ordinance will give staff greater ability to protect and preserve all wetlands within the City. The proposed amendment to the Wetland Overlay District regulations is consistent with the CWMP. Some of the sections within the proposed amendment include a wetland classification used to determine the requirements to manage and protect a particular wetland, the process for submitting applications for activities that may have an impact on wetlands, the required minimum buffer around a wetland based on its classification, and what type of stormwater pretreatment is required before discharging into a wetland. The amendment also contains an exemption from many of the wetland overlay requirements for lots that were created prior to 1998, when the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan was first adopted. In those cases, a natural, unmowed vegetative buffer of fifteen (15) feet is still required around the edge of the wetland regardless of that wetland’s classification. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION If approved, the CWMP will be in greater conformance with the federal Wetland Conservation Act, the wetland inventory will be brought up to date, and wetland impacts will be more effectively and efficiently mitigated. Adoption of the text amendment to the Wetland Overlay Ordinance will allow staff to enforce the regulations and standards contained within the CWMP to protect and preserve the numerous wetlands within Rosemount. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval of the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan and a text amendment to Section 11-7-3: Wetland Overlay Regulations. EXCERPT FROM THE MARCH 30, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 5.b. Wetland Ordinance Text Amendment (21-09-TA) 6.a. Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Update (21-08-TA) Planner Nemcek introduced items together. Roxy Robertson with WSB provided a thorough presentation on the wetland management plan update. Commissioners and staff discussed buffers around wetland areas. Robertson explained that a buffer is an un-mowed, native perennial vegetation strip of land that does not include any sort of structure. With the amendment, it will be more enforceable to maintain the wetland buffers. The public hearing opened at 7:36 pm. Public Comments: MOTION by Kenninger to close the public hearing. Second by Marlow. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes. The public hearing closed at 7:37 pm. Additional Comments: Kenninger requested that the city contact homeowners along wetlands and educate them on the buffers and wetland management. Planner Nemcek state that the Environment and Sustainability Commission may be interested in completing an outreach effort to homeowners. MOTION by Reed to recommend the City Council approve the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Update and the Text Amendment to Section 11-7-3: Wetland Overlay Regulations. Second by Rivera. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes. Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan ADOPTED 1998 AMENDED FEBRUARY 1999 AMENDED DECEMBER 2005 AMENDED DECEMBER 2007 AMENDED FEBRUARY 2013 AMENDED MARCH 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NO. I. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................1 II. Introduction and Purpose .....................................................................................................2 III. Definitions and References ..................................................................................................5 IV. Wetland Regulations ............................................................................................................8 V. Technical Elements ............................................................................................................10 VI. Functional Assessment.......................................................................................................12 VII. Wetland Classification .......................................................................................................13 VIII. Wetland Management Policies ..........................................................................................14 IX. Wetland Replacement ........................................................................................................20 X. Replacement Wetland and Buffer Monitoring and Standards ...........................................21 A. Monitoring ................................................................................................................................21 XI. New Wetlands ....................................................................................................................24 APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT RESULTS ................................................................................25 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Assessment Results Appendix B – City Council Resolution Page 1 March 2021 I. Executive Summary Wetlands within the City of Rosemount are regulated through Wetland Overlay District Section 11-7-3 of Title 11 Zoning Regulations of the City Code. The Wetland Overlay District is intended impose restrictions in addition to those required by the underlying zoning for the protection of wetlands. The Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (WMP or Plan) is an inventory/assessment of wetlands in Rosemount combined with a plan designed to maximize the benefit that surface waters can provide to the community. This Plan is intended to guide and supplement the regulations within the Wetland Overlay District. The wetland map of the City is available on the City’s website . Wetlands have been prioritized for management based on the assessed functional score and guidance has been developed for wetland management based on these scores. This Plan has been reviewed and revised the past several years to address changes in State Wetland Conservation Act Rules. The Plan has also been further refined through lessons learned and interpretation of the guidance during implementation. The policies within this WMP apply to wetlands and projects that will be reviewed through a site development process and are subject to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Wetlands that are not subject to site development review but rather are associated with individual lot activities or require a zoning permit will be subject to the Wetland Overlay District. Page 2 March 2021 II. Introduction and Purpose The City of Rosemount’s Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (WMP) was developed in 1998 to be in conformance with Minnesota Rules 8420. The purpose of establishing the WMP was to develop policies related to the use and protection of wetlands within the City when and if development occurred. The purpose of the WMP is to provide the City with additional guidance and policy related to wetland protection, impacts, and mitigation based on the needs of the community. The WMP was also designed to provide information to land developers and the public regarding the amount, characteristics, and value of local wetlands and surface water. This WMP exists for the purpose of optimizing the City’s surface water resources as provided under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. The goals of this Plan are to: • Determine the quantity and quality of the wetland resources in Rosemount. • Map wetlands at a scale appropriate for local planning purposes. • Maintain data for use by residents and developers. • Focus limited resources in the most effective direction. • Solve chronic wetland management problems. • Identify key educational areas. • Achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, functionality, and biological diversity of Rosemount’s existing wetlands. • Increase the quantity, quality, functionality, and biological diversity of Rosemount’s wetlands by enhancing diminished or drained wetlands where feasible. • Avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of wetlands. • Replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible and prudent. • Optimize management of City surface water and wetland by integrating all surface water related management plans and ordinances. • To identify existing and potential problems or opportunities for protection, management, and development of water resources and related land resources in the County. • To develop and implement a plan of action to promote sound management of water resources in the City. Page 3 March 2021 • Provide performance standards for wetland replacement areas, including the associated upland buffer. Over the past decade, the City has seen a consistent level of development of residential and commercial development. City-wide, the available supply of developable land has steadily diminished and new development over the next two decades is projected to occur at the University of Minnesota’s UMore Park and the largely undeveloped southeast portion of the City. New growth and land development have put great pressure on the quality and benefits associated with the City’s surface water resources. The total wetland area in Rosemount covers about 1,832 acres, or about 8% of the City. About 1,174 of these acres are associated with the Mississippi River corridor. Most of the remaining 658 acres include about 400 other surface water bodies in Rosemount which are small to medium sized pothole wetlands lying within the City’s northwest corner. Here a swath of the Wisconsin Age, St. Croix Moraine has left behind a hilly terrain with many potholes and small enclosed watersheds. 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. 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 have the highest potential for wetland impacts from development. The functional classification of several wetlands have been updated using MnRAM results provided by applicants through the WCA approval process. Original assessment scores have been archived and can be provided upon request. The updated assessments and wetlands map are available on the City’s website. The City has applied the WMP policies on all land development in the City of Rosemount since the adoption of the plan in 1998. Wetland buffer zone monuments installed with new development have contributed to the public education portion of the WMP. Buffer zones themselves have increased in overall area and vegetation density. Wetland monitoring provides the City with technical data on mitigation sites. The data are reviewed to ensure that the appropriate wetland type and functionality are attained. The City’s Erosion and Sediment Control policy has helped to prevent soil erosion and deposition impacts to wetlands adjacent to construction. Based on the implementation of this Plan since 1998 and subsequent amendments, it has been determined by the City that a number of policy clarifications were needed. The purpose of this Plan amendment is to address the following issues: • Wetland buffer zones and related policies. • Wetland replacement regulations and procedures. • Changes to the WCA over the years. • Incorporate the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) as a replacement for the RoseWFA for wetland functions and values assessments. • Establish clear administrative authority for WCA decisions. • Provide updated functional assessment information (MnRAM) of several wetlands. Page 4 March 2021 The WMP provides greater flexibility and control over wetland management and protection to meet the specific needs and goals of the community. The Plan was developed in recognition of the City of Rosemount’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This document 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 5 March 2021 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. City: The incorporated City of Rosemount. Complete Application: An application, as defined in MnRule 8420 that meets the requirements as per MnRule 8420.0255, Subp. 2 Determination of a Complete Application and contains sufficient and technically accurate information required to make a decision, as determined by the City. An application may be deemed incomplete if it contains information that does not support the conclusions on which the application is based and for which a decision has been requested. Creation: Construction of wetlands in an area that was not wetlands in the past. Excavation: The displacement or removal of the sediment or other materials by any method. Fill: As defined in MnRule 8420. Growing Season: As defined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region. Hydric soils: Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Hydrophytic vegetation: Macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil, or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. Impact: As defined in MnRule 8420. Indirect impact: An impact that is a result of an activity that occurs outside of the wetland boundary (MM Rule 8420) including, but not limited to, impacts associated with altering the hydrologic inputs to a wetland basin that results in converting the wetland to nonwetland or changing the wetland type. Indirect impacts are determined on a per-project basis and shall be evaluated by the City and in consultation with the Technical Evaluation Panel, at the discretion of the City. Landowner: A person or entity having the rights necessary to drain or fill a wetland, or to establish and maintain a replacement or banked wetland. Typically, the landowner is a fee title owner or a holder of an easement, license, lease, or rental agreement providing the necessary rights. The right must not be limited by a lien or other encumbrance that could override the obligations assumed with the replacement or banking of a wetland. Page 6 March 2021 Local government unit: The City of Rosemount. Project: A specific plan, contiguous activity, proposal, or design necessary to accomplish a goal as defined by the local government unit. As used in this chapter, a project may not be split into components or phases for the sole purpose of gaining additional exemptions. Public value of wetlands: The public benefit and use of wetlands as determined based upon a functional assessment method. Soil and water conservation district: A legal subdivision of state government under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103C. Upland Buffer Credit: For the purposes of this Plan, Upland Buffer Credit shall incorporate the requirements and standards of MnRule 8420.0526, Subp. 2. 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). Wetland Buffer Zone Setback: A 30-foot minimum distance from the buffer edge in which a structure cannot be built. Wetland Buffer Zones (Buffer Zone): Non-wetland areas, which extend a specified distance from the wetland edge, that are established in conservation easement during development. The Wetland Buffer Zone width is based on the functional assessment results for wetlands subject to development and the Comprehensive Plan. Wetland Buffer Zones are undeveloped, un- manicured, and minimally maintained terrestrial areas of native or naturally occurring vegetation that experience little to no human impact. Wetland Buffer Zones help to protect adverse impacts to the wetland. Restrictions apply to the activities within a Wetland Buffer Zone once a buffer zone is established. The Wetland Buffer Zone starts at the delineated wetland edge. Wetland Buffer Zone Averaging: Practice of allowing a variable width buffer zone around a wetland where the average buffer zone width is equal to the buffer zone width required for the wetland management category. Buffer zone averaging shall incorporate landscape connectivity where possible and ecologically feasible. Some examples include, but are not limited to, the following: a) averaging the buffer zone to be wider around the portion of the wetland where upstream development will occur; b) incorporating landscape features that may be prone to Page 7 March 2021 erosion to maintain a vegetated area and prevent sedimentation into the wetland; c) incorporating a higher quality habitat to protect the area from disturbance. Wetland Replacement Credit: For the purposes of this Plan, Wetland Replacement Credit shall mean the Actions Eligible for Credit, as per MM Rule 8420.0526, Subp. 3-7. References • Eggers, Steve D. and Donald Reed, Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul MN, (1987). • Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Field Guide, (1997). • Minnesota Storm Water Advisory Group, Buffer Zones, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, (September 1997). • Minnesota Storm Water Advisory Group, Storm-Water and Wetlands: Planning and Evaluation Guidelines for Addressing Potential Impacts of Urban Storm-Water and Snow- Melt Runoff on Wetlands, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, (June 1997). • United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Wetlands of the United States, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39, (1971). • United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wetland Delineation Manual, (1987). • U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. • Cowardin, et al., Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, (1979). • Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology for Evaluating Wetland Functions, Version 3.4 beta – November (2010). • National Wetland Inventory Maps United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 8 March 2021 IV. Wetland Regulations The existing wetland regulatory framework in Minnesota involves a number of federal, state, and local agencies including the US Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency, and the Local Government Units. A brief discussion of the role of each wetland regulatory agency is included in this section. A. US Army Corps of Engineers The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials to wetlands and other water bodies through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act provided there is a connection to navigable waters. Any impact to navigable waters or wetlands that are connected to navigable waters, including filling, draining, or excavation, may require a permit from the COE. Wetland delineations are also subject to COE approval. Depending on the size and extent of the wetland impact, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency may be involved in providing water quality certification for the COE permit. B. Department of Natural Resources The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has jurisdiction over Public Waters and Wetlands as depicted on the DNR Public Waters and Wetland maps. The DNR has jurisdiction over Public Water and Wetlands below the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation or below the top-of-bank for streams. The OHW is determined by the DNR. Any impact to a Public Water or Wetland may require a permit from the DNR. C. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) water quality standards applicable to wetland protection are contained in Minnesota Rules 7050. Water quality standards are applicable to all wetlands of the state and sequencing requirements of Minnesota Rule 7050.0186 apply to all wetland alterations that are permitted or certified by the MPCA as described below. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/SDS permit program is a delegated federal permit issued under the responsibilities and authorities contained in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115. In accordance with Minnesota Rule 7050.0186, sequencing requirements to avoid, minimize, and mitigate wetland impacts are required to be satisfied in the issuance of NPDES/SDS permits, including issuance of the general Construction Storm Water NPDES permits. If a project includes a physical wetland alteration caused by draining, filling, excavation, or inundation of the wetland and that impact is not addressed in either the US Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit, the Department of Natural Resources permit, or the Wetland Conservation Act permit, then mitigation compliance with Minnesota Rule 7050.0186 must be demonstrated. For the purposes of the MPCA NPDES permit, de minimis determinations by another permitting agency that address the project impacts are recognized by the MPCA. However, a non-jurisdictional determination by another permitting agency that does not address project impacts requires the project proposer to demonstrate that they meet the NPDES permit conditions and Minnesota Rule 7050.0186. D. Local Government Unit (LGU) The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) is a state law enacted in 1991 and subsequently amended (Minnesota Laws CH 354, Minnesota Statute 103G.222-2373 and other scattered sections). The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) provides agency oversight for Page 9 March 2021 WCA through Minnesota Rule 8420. The WCA is administered by Local Government Units (LGU). BWSR’s role is to assist LGUs in the implementation of WCA and to be a member of the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). The 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 functions and values. E. Wetland Applications Wetland related applications shall be submitted to the City of Rosemount per the requirements of the Wetland Overlay District Ordinance Subsection 11-7-3 D. F. Wetland Application and Decision Procedures Application review and decision procedures by the LGU shall follow the requirements as per MnRule 8420.0255, as amended, and those procedures are included by reference. 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 MnRules 8420.0230 Subp. 2. If the 60-day process cannot be accommodated due to the timing of the preliminary plat process or outlying information, the process will follow Minnesota Statute 15.99 (the “60-day rule”). Once a decision is made, the City will send a Notice of Decision to all who received a summary or copy of the permit application. The City’s decision is then effective, and the project can commence provided that replacement of the wetland impacts occurs before or concurrently with the wetland impact, all other permits from other agencies have been obtained, and that the conditions, if any, of the Notice of Decision are fully met. There is a 30-day appeal process in MnRule Chapter 8420. The applicant can begin work during this appeal window at its own risk. If the LGU’s decision is appealed, work on the project would be suspended until the appeal process is resolved. See Section H, below, for appeal procedures. G. Local Government Unit Decision Authority Summary Wetland application decision authority is outlined in the Wetland Overlay District Ordinance Subsection 11-7-3 E. H. Appeals of Wetland Application Decisions and Enforcement Procedures Appeals of exemption, no-loss, wetland boundary, wetland type, sequencing, replacement plan, or banking plan decisions made by the City will follow the appeal process in accordance with MnRule 8420, as amended. Wetland Conservation Act Enforcement procedures shall be in conformance with MnRule 8420. Page 10 March 2021 V. Technical Elements A. Wetland/Surface Water Inventory Wetlands were identified based on instructions in the “Minnesota Wetland Delineation Field Guide”. Included in field documentation is notation on hydrology, size, vegetation and soils, several photographs, and Dakota County topographic half-section map locations. This field reconnaissance was carried out in 1997 and 1998 by the City’s Water Resources Engineer with assistance from interns trained and supervised by the former. The database was set up using the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) compiled in 1987 using aerial photography. The database was then modified with any changes found by field inspection during the spring, summer and fall of 1997 and spring of 1998. Wetlands found by field inspection that were not listed in the NWI have been added. Wetland determinations were arrived at using the three defining factors for a wetland, Hydrology, Vegetation, and Soils. Each of these parameters needs to be present before an area could be determines as “wetland” according to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual for Delineating Wetlands. B. Field Methods Various resources were utilized both in the office and in the field to determine possible wetland sites. Initially, 1991 topographic maps were used in conjunction with the NWI map to locate wetlands in the City. Next, 1991 aerial photographs were viewed to locate low and possible water holding areas. The last step in the office reconnaissance was to check the local soils map for hydric (wetland) soils. After these preparatory steps were taken, the field work was undertaken. All areas were covered on foot, and low areas or areas with one of the three wetland indicators (hydrology, soils, and vegetation) were tested. Areas that tested as wetlands were documented on field data sheets as well as sketched onto topographic maps for approximate representation of size. Photographs were taken of the wetland sites as well. Precise delineations of wetlands are left to be completed by property owners, as the need arises. C. Database Information Using the information collected during field work, wetlands were categorized using the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NWI classification systems. This information was then entered into the wetland database. The database shows Rosemount’s wetland number, size, FWS type, DNR number, and other relevant information (see the map on the City’s website). 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 11 March 2021 D. Geographic Information Systems Map Polygon coverage using the program Arcview was linked to the tabular data in the Microsoft Access Database with a common identifier. Polygons representing the shape of the wetlands were drawn using contour and parcel coverages as a backdrop. The overall process was used to create a digital map that can be accessed with ease to locate wetlands throughout the City of Rosemount. Maps can be generated and database information about the wetlands can be viewed. The GIS maps are updated seasonally to account for wetland impact activity and monitoring accomplished for that season. New and replacement wetlands will be incorporated in the GIS database and City map as they are established. The functionality and classification will be updated based on the monitoring information provided to the City. The GIS map will also be updated to reflect new information (i.e., wetland delineation decisions, revised management classifications, etc.) on an as needed basis. For example, each year the City has received applications for wetland boundary decisions that have resulted, upon review and approval by the City, in several features identified in the WMP as wetland being determined to be non-wetland. These features have been removed from the Plan and as such, are not regulated by the policies herein. As a part of this 2020 update, the polygons and attribute table of the inventory’s GIS shapefile have been updated and an updated inventory map is on the City’s website. Page 12 March 2021 VI. Functional Assessment The functional value of each wetland was evaluated in 1997-1998 with respect to the following functional parameters: • Floral diversity and integrity • Water quality protection • Fish and wildlife habitat • Flood/storm water attenuation • Shoreline protection • Groundwater recharge and discharge • Aesthetic/recreation/education and science • Commercial uses Wetland functionality was assessed in 1997 according to a modified version of the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) referred to as the Rosemount Wetland Functional Assessment (RoseWFA) worksheet . It was developed in 1997 in consultation with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Rosemount Wetland Committee, and City staff. The 2012 Plan Amendment replaced RoseWFA with them most current version of MnRAM. The MnRAM has become the state standard for wetland assessments. MnRAM is a comprehensive assessment of both a wetland’s function and value and can be directly associated with WCA policies in implementing this Plan. The City’s wetland inventory has not been fully updated using MnRAM, but upon application of a proposed or planned plat or any other development of a site or property, the City will require that the applicant complete a re-assessment of the wetlands using the most current version of MnRAM. MnRAM results from applicants will be added to the City’s wetland inventory on an annual basis and will replace functional assessment values from 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 as defined in this Plan, which is generally May 1 – October 15, but may fall outside of this date range depending on climate conditions. Page 13 March 2021 VII. Wetland Classification Wetlands are classified for management and protection based on the “Basic Wetland Protection” management strategy in MnRAM. The classification system guidance can be found at https://bwsr.state.mn.us/wetland-functional-assessment. A map of the City’s wetlands is on the City’s webpage and their classifications can be found in Appendix A. The management classifications and corresponding functional scores are as follows: Preserve (P): Wetlands that were placed into the Preserve category generally provided the highest functions for vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat. Manage 1 (M1): Wetlands that were placed into the Manage 1 category generally provided high functions for vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat with some functions for water quality protection and flood attenuation. Manage 2 (M2): Wetlands that were placed into the Manage 2 category generally provided some functions for vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat with high functions for water quality protection and flood attenuation. Manage 3 (M3): Wetlands that were placed into the Manage 3 category generally provided the functions for water quality protection and flood attenuation. Appeal of a Management Classification: In the event of a dispute concerning wetland management classification, the applicant or project proposer will be required to submit a MnRAM to the LGU. The appeal must include the wetland number, current classification, MnRAM results, and reason(s) for the appeal. The LGU will review the wetland and MnRAM results and may request input from the Technical Evaluation Panel. A decision will be made based on a review of the information within 30 days during the growing season or 30 days after the growing season begins, if the request for appeal is submitted outside of the growing season. A notice of the City’s decision on the management classification appeal will be sent to the appealing party and the regulatory agencies. This notice will indicate either the revised management classification (if the City concurs with the appeal) or the existing management classification and the management and protection strategies assigned to the wetland by support of this document. Staff will make a decision within 60 days of receiving a complete request of appeal (or within the appropriate time period after the growing season begins if the application was submitted outside of the growing season) and notify the applicant of the decision. Appeals of the LGU’s decision can be made to the City Council. Page 14 March 2021 VIII. Wetland Management Policies A. General Water Quality Practices For wetlands Citywide, several tools can be applied with minimal expense. The City shall maintain its regularly scheduled program of street sweeping and storm drain sump cleaning. City streets are swept twice yearly and catch basin sumps are cleaned seasonally based on the schedule of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). These programs can have a significant impact on wetland water quality by removing sediments and chemicals from the storm water runoff that enters surface water bodies. The Engineering Department and Building Inspections currently maintain a general erosion control inspection and enforcement program. The goal of this program is to minimize transport of sediments eroded from construction sites to surface water bodies. This program is supported by language in the City’s Surface Water Management Ordinance as well as the Uniform Building Code for the State of Minnesota. This program is continually being reviewed and improved to minimize the impact to water quality of storm water runoff. In compliance with state requirements, the City has developed and implemented a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) which focuses on the preventative aspects of storm water pollution. The SWPPP is a combination of Best Management Practices (BMPs), ordinance, and public education tools used to prevent storm water pollution. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requires the City of Rosemount submit an annual report with results and summaries of the actions taken for the previous year. In order to organize and implement Rosemount’s Wetland and Surface Water Management Plan, an ordinance has been developed under Minnesota Statute Chapter 462. This ordinance is available on the City’s webpage. Efforts to educate residents regarding wetland ecosystems and best management practices are ongoing and will continue. Along with dissemination of surface water specific information, programs that will encourage direct action on the part of residents, such as the Citizens Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) will be discussed by City staff. The City will continue to promote and sponsor an “Adopt-A-Wetland” program. This will enlist volunteers to collect litter and trash that accumulates around and within City wetlands as well as addressing other needs as they develop. Other educational opportunities will be actively sought. B. Category Specific Management Strategies The inventory and functional assessment information was used to determine management categories for individual wetlands based on functional level. Wetlands that score highest are targeted for maximum protection and resource dedication. The wetland category management strategies were designed to optimize resource allocation. The goal of this 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 Page 15 March 2021 protection for wetlands existing under state or federal law but rather specifies proactive management strategies scaled to the current functional levels of Rosemount wetlands. The management strategies call for increasing levels of protection for wetlands that score high in the functional assessment. In terms of actual management practices these different levels are implemented through buffer zones, storm water treatment, mitigation requirements, and public education. 1. Wetland Buffer Zones and Prioritization Buffer establishment applies to any property in which an application has been required under Subsection 11-7-3 B of the Wetland Overlay District Ordinance and has been determined to have a wetland that has been classified under Subsection 11-7-3 C of the Wetland Overlay District Ordinance. Wetland buffer zones are upland areas that contain natural areas of vegetation designated by a LGU to protect the ecological values and functions of the aquatic system. Buffer zone functions include: • Stabilizing soils and preventing erosion • Filtering suspended solids and nutrients • Supporting and protecting fish and wildlife habitat • Encouraging the production of unique vegetation • Stabilizing water temperature • Deterring human encroachment • Provide habitat connections for wildlife Dense native vegetation is the optimal condition for an effective wetland buffer zone. Once established, activities in buffer zones that are not associated with the approved buffer zone management plan that disturb the roots or influence the growth of the vegetation, such as grading, mowing, landscaping and planting, fertilizing, spraying (herbicides), and seeding or sodding are prohibited. Herbicides and controlled burns or other management practices used to control noxious weeds or invasive species will be allowed only with permission from the City Engineer. Enhancement of the buffer zone through installation of additional native plantings is allowed and encouraged. The width of buffer zone considered appropriate to protect a wetland from degradation is related to the wetland functions being protected and the buffer zone functions being provided. Buffer zone 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 1: 50 feet Manage 2: 30 feet Manage 3: 15 feet (non-agricultural areas) Page 16 March 2021 In addition to the buffer zone widths, the City requires a 30-foot structure setback from the buffer to allow for usable yard space per Subsection 11-7-3 G.4 of the Wetland Overlay District Ordinance. Buffer zones will be contained within a conservation easement that includes both the wetland and the buffer zone per Subsection 11-7-3 G.5 of the Wetland Overlay District Ordinance. A sample of the City’s conservation easement can be obtained from the City. The conservation easements will be recorded with the final plat and must be indicated on subsequent land development plans. The extent of the conservation easement will be determined based on the prescribed buffer zone width for the wetland in question and/or the outer limits of an approved averaged wetland buffer zone. These easements provide the City with a legal right to the property and the ability to enforce the wetland buffer zone requirements as outlined in this document. All project reviews will need to take into account a buffer zone prioritization review. This prioritization review involves the following and is required to be in an application when required under Subsection 11-7-3 B of the Wetland Overlay District Ordinance. a) Projects shall include the buffer zone and setback zone standards. However, no wetlands shall be filled or impacted in order to provide for the appropriate buffer zone. b) In cases where meeting the setback standard causes impact to the wetland or the buffer zone, flexibility on the wetland setback will be considered. c) In cases where meeting the buffer zone standard causes impact to the wetland, flexibility on the buffer zone will be considered. When flexibility in the buffer zone width is determined to be necessary by the City, the project proposer or applicant must consider the following: • The buffer zone width averaging will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • The buffer zone plan will take into account landscape connections and habitat corridors needs to be incorporated into the buffer plan. See definition of buffer zone averaging in Section III. • The buffer zone plan will include the percent of the buffer zone that will be impacted as compared to the size of the wetland. • A minimum 30’ buffer zone is encouraged on P and M1 wetlands. • A minimum 15’ buffer zone is encouraged on M2. • Averaged buffer zone acreage must be equal to or greater than the required buffer zone acreage. • Buffer zone averaging will be based on each wetland to the greatest extent possible. The City at its discretion may allow buffer zone averaging within the entire development project. An exception to the minimum buffer zone average will be considered for linear public road projects. Page 17 March 2021 Conservation easements are required over the buffer zone 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 zone averaging around the wetland. 2. Buffer Establishment For projects that require buffer zone establishment, a buffer zone Establishment and Management Plan must be submitted for review and approval by the City. 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 in wetland buffer zones. If the wetland buffer is not disturbed as a result of development construction, or other activity, the existing natural vegetation shall be considered acceptable. This exception does not apply to wetland buffer zones that receive replacement credit as part of an approved replacement plan. Buffer zone monitoring will be required to be completed by the project proposer for a minimum of five years unless the City determines that the buffer zones is meeting performance standards. The City can extend this monitoring requirement if the buffer zone is not meeting performance standards. An annual monitoring report shall be submitted to the City and include a summary of buffer zone management activities, a quantification of the plant species present, a picture of the buffer zone, and discussion of upcoming buffer zone management activities. The buffer zone will need to meet the City’s performance standards. Information about what needs to be included in this buffer zone Establishment and Management Plan and the performance standards are included in Section X.B. 3. Buffer Zones Around Replacement Wetlands Buffer zones will be required to be established around wetland replacement sites. If the wetland replacement is proposed to be an expansion of an existing wetland, the buffer zone width required for the existing wetland category will be the required buffer zone width of the replacement area, or as required in MnRule 8420.0522, Subp. 6, whichever is greater. If the wetland replacement is a stand-alone site, the buffer width will be based on the required buffer zone width of the wetland being impacted, or as required in MnRule 8420.0522, Subp. 6, whichever is greater. 4. Storm Water Pre-Treatment Storm water can have a detrimental impact on wetlands. To alleviate the sediment and nutrient loading such input places on wetlands, this Plan includes various levels of storm water pretreatment as follows: Preserve: Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required, consider diversion if possible Manage 1: Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required. Manage 2: Sediment pretreatment required. Manage 3: Pretreatment to NPDES standards (per Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules) is required if these standards apply to the project. Page 18 March 2021 The above requirements are left somewhat open as to the particular method selected for each case. This will allow some flexibility, especially to incorporate new technologies and techniques. Storm water ponds will be required to be placed in easements. Final approval of treatment methods shall in all cases be left to the City Engineer. 5. Storm Water Treatment Ponds Within Wetland Buffer Zones Storm water treatment ponds within designated wetland buffer zones are becoming a common land development practice. Although the pond compromises the wetland buffer zone, 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 wetland buffer zone must adhere to the following: • Wetland buffer zone must be provided between the pond and the wetland and around the perimeter of the entire system. Wetland buffer zone 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 zone must be equal to the total buffer zone required for the wetland based on the classification prescribed in Table IX-1. The storm water pond, as measured from the Normal Water Level (NWL), will not count towards the buffer zone. Infiltration basins (and similar stormwater best management practices) can be placed within the wetland buffer at the discretion and upon approval of the City Engineer. The surface area of the infiltration basin can be included, at the discretion and upon approval by the City Engineer, as part of the required buffer zone since its function and structure is similar to that of the buffer zone. In these cases, the infiltration basin should have at least 75% cover of vegetation. Wetlands created as part of water quality treatment systems, are eligible for replacement credit as per MnRule 8420.0526, Subp 7.C, as amended. 6. Wetland Buffer Zone Monuments For all wetland buffer easements, the developer shall be responsible for the installation of monuments which mark the outer edge of the wetland buffer zones. Buffer zone monuments must be indicated on the grading plan and shall generally be placed at the intersections of lot lines and the buffer zone 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. Page 19 March 2021 VIII-I. Wetland Management and Protection Requirements Management Class Management Strategy Wetland Buffer Zone Standards Storm Water Management Minimum Mitigation Standard Preserve Maintain wetland and existing functions, values, and wildlife habitat. Apply strict avoidance standards. 75 feet 30’ minimum if buffer zone averaging is encouraged. Monuments required. Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required; consider diversion if possible. 3:1 replacement ratio with a minimum 2 acres of Wetland Replacement Credit and maximum 1 acre of Upland Buffer Credit for every acre impacted. Manage 1 Maintain wetland without degrading existing functions, values and wildlife habitat. Sequencing is required. 50 feet 30’ minimum if buffer zone averaging is encouraged. Monuments required. Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required. 2:1 replacement ratio with a minimum of 1 acre of Wetland Replacement Credit and a maximum of 1 acre of Upland Buffer Credit for every acre impacted. Additional mitigation may be required by the WCA in MR 8420. Manage 2 Maintain wetland functionality. Allow limited sequencing flexibility. 30 feet 15’ minimum if buffer zone averaging is encouraged. Monuments required. Sediment pretreatment required. 2:1 replacement ratio with a minimum of 1 acre of Wetland Replacement Credit and maximum of 1 acre of Upland Buffer Credit for every acre impacted. Additional mitigation may be required by the WCA in MR 8420. Manage 3 Allow maximum sequencing flexibility. 15 feet for non-agricultural areas only. Monuments not required. Pretreatment to NPDES standards (per Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules) is required if these standards apply to the project. 2:1 replacement ratio with a minimum of 1 acre of Wetland Replacement Credit and maximum of 1 acre of Upland Buffer Credit for every acre impacted. Additional mitigation may be required by the WCA in MR 8420. Page 20 March 2021 IX. Wetland Replacement Subject to an approved sequencing evaluation, the applicant shall 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 ensure resource allocation is optimized. The guidelines are as follows: Preserve: Wetlands under this category shall receive the maximum amount of protection under this Plan. Impacts will be allowed only under extreme hardship. Replacement is required at a 3:1 ratio. For project specific replacement a minimum of 2 acres of Wetland Replacement Credit and a maximum of 1 acre of Upland Buffer Credit shall replace every acre impacted. Manage 1: Mitigation of wetlands in this category will be at a minimum 2:1 ratio. For project specific replacement, a minimum of 1 acre of Wetland Replacement Credit and a maximum of 1 acre of Upland Buffer Credit shall replace every acre impacted. Additional mitigation may be required MnRule 8420. Manage 2: Mitigation of wetlands in this category will be at a minimum 2:1 ratio. For project specific replacement, a minimum of 1 acre of Wetland Replacement Credit and a maximum of 1 acre of Upland Buffer Credit shall replace every acre impacted. Additional mitigation may be required by MnRule 8420. Manage 3: Mitigation of wetlands in this category will be at a minimum 2:1 ratio. For project specific replacement, a minimum of 1 acre of Wetland Replacement Credit and a maximum of 1 acre of Upland Buffer Credit shall replace every acre impacted. WCA sequencing flexibility is applicable for these wetlands. Additional mitigation may be required by MnRule 8420. The City has a goal of no net loss of wetland within its political boundary. The wetland replacement application must contain a narrative that evaluates the wetland replacement siting prioritization through the siting sequence to the point of the chosen wetland replacement plan. The wetland replacement siting priority is as follows: 1. Wetland replacement through onsite mitigation within the project site if a historically drained, restorable wetland is present on site or there is opportunity for a reasonable expansion of an existing wetland that will be more beneficial to the City’s goal of no net loss of wetland than the purchase of wetland banking credits, per discretion of the City staff. Page 21 March 2021 2. Wetland replacement through onsite mitigation within the City limits if a historically drained, restorable wetland is present on site or there is opportunity for a reasonable expansion of an existing wetland that will be more beneficial to the City’s goal of no net loss of wetland than the purchase of wetland banking credits, per discretion of the City staff. 3. Purchase of wetland banking credits from a state-approved wetland bank, per MnRule 8420.0522 siting of replacement requirements, as amended. If onsite wetland mitigation is proposed, the preservation of existing wetlands on the subject property is not an eligible credit for the mitigation requirements except as otherwise provided in MnRule 8420.0526. Onsite mitigation through the restoration of a drained wetland is preferred. Wetland creation adjacent to Manage 2 or Manage 3 wetlands is also acceptable. Expansion adjacent to Preserve and Manage 1 wetlands is not an action eligible for credit. For example, the restoration or expansion of a Manage 2 or 3 wetland would be preferable rather than the expansion of a Preserve or Manage 1 wetland. The goal of this recommendation is to increase the functions and values of the degraded wetlands within the City as part of projects that result in impacting wetlands. As of the date of this amendment, there are no wetland bank sites within the City of Rosemount. A goal of the City is to identify, evaluate, and pursue wetland bank sites within the City. As wetlands are assessed using the newly incorporated MnRAM, potential wetland restoration opportunities will be identified that could be utilized as wetland bank sites. In the event that project-specific wetland replacement fails, the applicant shall be responsible for proposing and developing an alternative plan that fulfills the requirements of the approved wetland replacement plan. The City may provide additional input or require alternative replacement strategies that ensure the requirements of the replacement plan (WCA) are met and that the alternative plans meet the intent of the WMP. These alternatives will be developed on a case-by-case basis and at the discretion of the City. Replacement Wetlands and Buffer Zones A. Monitoring All on site replacement wetlands must be certified by the City of Rosemount, as per MnRule 8420.0800, prior to the start of the wetland monitoring period. Wetland monitoring is required by the applicant for replacement wetlands for a period of five years, or as required as per MnRule 8420, as amended. The developer coordinates the monitoring and maintenance for wetland replacement sites. Monitoring includes actively managing the replacement site to ensure that vegetation is becoming established, erosion problem areas are stabilized, hydrology criteria are being met, and any other activities to ensure the wetland replacement goals are met. The monitoring requirements as per MnRule 8420.0810, as amended, are included by reference in this Plan. Annual monitoring reports should be submitted to the City for review. Page 22 March 2021 B. Performance Standards Wetland performance standards for replacement wetlands will be evaluated on a per- project basis by the City based on the performance standards outlined in MnRule 8420.0528. On site replacement plan applications must contain a wetland vegetation Establishment and Management Plan for all wetland replacement sites. The Establishment and Management Plan must include performance standards for vegetation establishment that ensure the dominance of native wetland species appropriate for the landscape conditions of the replacement site. The City, at its discretion, may require performance standards that differ from the applicant’s plan if the City determines the applicant’s plan does not meet the intent of the WMP, the WCA, or may not adequately replace the lost functions and values of the wetland that is proposed to be impacted. Establishment and Management Plans need to include: 1. A seeding plan with a native seed mix appropriate for site conditions for buffer zones that are to be created or reestablished. 2. Five-year maintenance plan. 3. Maintenance strategies and schedule designed to meet performance standards. These strategies could include, but are not limited to: a. Annual mowing b. Spot spraying herbicide c. Reseeding or over-seeding d. Planting plugs e. Burning The buffer will need to meet the City’s performance standards, but buffer zone performance standards will also be evaluated on a per project basis by the City if the developer proposes differing criteria. Buffer zones and replacement wetlands must meet the following performance standards by the end of the monitoring period: 1. 90% coverage with vegetation. 2. To encourage native vegetation, coverage needs to contain a minimum of 80% native plant species. 3. To encourage plant species diversity, a minimum of 50% of the seed mix plant species, or a minimum of ten species (whichever is less), must be present. 4. Vegetation must be comprised of grasses and forbs but may also include trees and shrubs. 5. Vegetation must contain less than 20% of “State Prohibited Noxious Weeds,” as listed by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. If at any time during the establishment period of the buffer zone or replacement wetland the City determines that it is not meeting the agreed upon performance standards, the City can require corrective action to ensure compliance. If compliance is not met by the project proposer, the City will draw on the developer’s financial security to complete the work. Page 23 March 2021 C. Construction Certification In accordance with MnRule 8420.0522, Subp. 9, a financial assurance, in an amount and from a source acceptable to the City of Rosemount, is required with the Subdivision or Development Agreement to ensure the proper establishment of the mitigation site(s) or buffer zones. One fifth of the financial assurance shall be returned to the developer after City approval of each yearly monitoring report showing satisfactory vegetation establishment. The final retained amount of the assurance will be returned upon issuance of the Certificate of Compliance indicating successful replacement of wetland functions and values and fulfillment of any and all conditions of the approved wetland replacement plan. The applicant must request the final review of the replacement and demonstrate that the replacement site(s) are eligible for receipt of the Certification of Compliance. Page 24 March 2021 X. New Wetlands “New wetlands” include wetlands deliberately created in upland (based on recent wetland delineation). This might include wetlands created as part of a wetland mitigation/creation project or as a result of blocked drainage patterns. 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 inventory GIS attribute data. Upon review of the new wetland’s progress and score, the City Engineer will place it in the category appropriate to the score. The City Engineer may place a created wetland in any category that is appropriate before the functionality has reached the level required by this Plan. Wet areas created by human activity (“incidental wetlands”) as specified in MnRules 8420.0105 not intended to produce wetland shall not become part of this Plan. Appendix March 2021 APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT RESULTS ""L ""L ""L""L ""L ""L ""L ""L 62 436 109 15 551 260 618 340 298 533 682 645 14 263 395 568 705 143 83 159 102 558 26 445 433 709 605 13 708 333 351 407 664 487 24 53 44 169 657 638 48 461 219 507 611 22 284524 496 646 679 38 359 152 539 629 157 139 614 255 253 69 672 417 384 332 582 556 168 537 541 212 98 355 226 124 40 31 183 557 268 194 581 642 325 698 176 20 177 294 288 238 610 509 399 273 142 660 259 278 616 621 676 419 633 462 252 95 560 187 464 588 56 368 493 580 586 36 671 335 608 552 207 61 132 331 604 319 200 214214 309 643 563 348 538 5 324 448 204 34 696 110 415 381381 239 23 619 248 282282 225 246 275 21 112 30 550 302 424 555 345 75 408 647 636 118 653 367 627 598 152 165 71 71 338 3535 650 136 577 471 347 434 369 665 380 188 379 28 307 640 623 303 463 220230 156 669 18 251 526 337 438 620 670 413 631 277 548 190 70 649 150 74 637 656 341 299299 330 382 52 27 85 80 536 65 16 469 674 361 704 120 146 211 191 217 232 453 641 442 699 320 46 528 224 681 639 504 12 296 576 452 593 129 529 81 468 644 595 474 470 313 254 581 634 615625 584 683 57 702 121128 609 356 293 96 628 437 707 546546 380 314 209 203 425 266 684 701 685 199 182 490 54 454 389 697 283 127 154 149 585 523 258 427 594 216 17 404 247 289 265 100 349 540 678 613 658 508 489 316 390 635 411 498 680 655 626 400 597 583 63 173 535 140 579 630 306 606 148 310 525 431 286 596 700 380 202 180 675 29 193 287 167 450 227 97 233 668 666 386 119 617 495 428 632 322 443 667 567 196 607 87 88 432 37 235 587 300 706 695 86 43 564 339 559 32 600 603 138 569 703 362 234 612 534 578 663663663 305 602 49 51 51 491 192 360360 503 570 285 33 279 206 206 290295 79 662 ""L ""L ""L""L ""L ""L ""L ""L 62 436 109 15 551 260 618 340 298 533 682 645 14 263 395 568 705 143 83 159 102 558 26 445 433 709 605 13 708 333 351 407 664 487 24 53 44 169 657 638 48 461 219 507 611 22 284524 496 646 679 38 359 152 539 629 157 139 614 255 253 69 672 417 384 332 582 556 168 537 541 212 98 355 226 124 40 31 183 557 268 194 581 642 325 698 176 20 177 294 288 238 610 509 399 273 142 660 259 278 616 621 676 419 633 462 252 95 560 187 464 588 56 368 493 580 586 36 671 335 608 552 207 61 132 331 604 319 200 214214 309 643 563 348 538 5 324 448 204 34 696 110 415 381381 239 23 619 248 282282 225 246 275 21 112 30 550 302 424 555 345 75 408 647 636 118 653 367 627 598 152 165 71 71 338 3535 650 136 577 471 347 434 369 665 380 188 379 28 307 640 623 303 463 220230 156 669 18 251 526 337 438 620 670 413 631 277 548 190 70 649 150 74 637 656 341 299299 330 382 52 27 85 80 536 65 16 469 674 361 704 120 146 211 191 217 232 453 641 442 699 320 46 528 224 681 639 504 12 296 576 452 593 129 529 81 468 644 595 474 470 313 254 581 634 615625 584 683 57 702 121128 609 356 293 96 628 437 707 546546 380 314 209 203 425 266 684 701 685 199 182 490 54 454 389 697 283 127 154 149 585 523 258 427 594 216 17 404 247 289 265 100 349 540 678 613 658 508 489 316 390 635 411 498 680 655 626 400 597 583 63 173 535 140 579 630 306 606 148 310 525 431 286 596 700 380 202 180 675 29 193 287 167 450 227 97 233 668 666 386 119 617 495 428 632 322 443 667 567 196 607 87 88 432 37 235 587 300 706 695 86 43 564 339 559 32 600 603 138 569 703 362 234 612 534 578 663663663 305 602 49 51 51 491 192 360360 503 570 285 33 279 206 206 290295 79 662 Path: T:\Project\CommDev\WetlandManagementPlan\CWMP.mxdWetland Inventory Map ""L Lift Station Storm Sewer >= 24" Storm Force Main Minor Watershed Boundary Mitigation Location Wetland Classification Preserve Manage1 Manage2 Manage3 Undetermined Utilize 8/19/2020 0 0.5 10.25 Mile Appendix March 2021 APPENDIX B – CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B-294 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE B RELATING TO WETLAND OVERLAY REGULATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS that Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled “City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance,” is hereby amended as follows: 11-7-3: WETLAND OVERLAY REGULATIONS:A.Purpose And Intent: It is the intent of this section to protect designated publicwaters from the potential adverse effects of filling; excavation; structuralencroachments; water level manipulation; and the construction of bridges, culvertsand utilities.B.Permit Required: Any alteration of any type 3, 4 or 5 wetland as depicted on theofficial city zoning map shall require the issuance of a "protected waters permit" by the DNR prior to the issuance of a building permit by the city of Rosemount. (Ord. B, 9-19-1989) A.Purpose And Intent: It is the intent of these wetland overlay regulations to imposerestrictions in addition to the those required by the underlying zoning for theprotection of wetlands as defined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ Wetland Delineation Manual 1987 or Minnesota Rule 8420 with the followingimplementation purposes:1.To implement the Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan.2.To achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity ofexisting wetlands.3.To increase the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of wetlands byrestoring or enhancing diminished or drained wetlands.4.To avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminishthe quantity, quality, and biological diversity of wetlands.5.To replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible andprudent.B.Application Required: Any property proposing an activity that is regulated asdescribed within Section IV. Wetland Regulations of the Comprehensive WetlandManagement Plan shall submit an application to the City through the Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota availablethrough the Board of Soil and Water Resources. This application shall be subject to the requirements of this Section, the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan, and Minnesota Rule 8420. C. Wetland Classification: Wetlands are classified for management and protection based on the “Basic Wetland Protection” management strategy in MnRAM. The management classifications and corresponding functional scores are as follows: 1. Preserve (P): Wetlands that were placed into the Preserve category generally provided the highest functions for vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat. 2. Manage 1 (M1): Wetlands that were placed into the Manage 1 category generally provided high functions for vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat with some functions for water quality protection and flood attenuation. 3. Manage 2 (M2): Wetlands that were placed into the Manage 2 category generally provided some functions for vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat with high functions for water quality protection and flood attenuation. 4. Manage 3 (M3): Wetlands that were placed into the Manage 3 category generally provided the functions for water quality protection and flood attenuation. D. Wetland Applications: Wetland related applications shall be submitted to the City of Rosemount as per the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan and MnRule 8420. 1. Wetland Boundary or Type Application: When an application subject to Chapter 10 of this Title or Title 12 Subdivision is submitted to the City, the applicant shall submit a wetland delineation to determine the wetland boundary and type. The delineation will include the following information: a. Level 1 delineation completed in compliance with the most recent US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Guidance for Offsite Hydrology/Wetland Determinations. b. If a Level 1 delineation indicts the likelihood of a wetland, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Level 2 delineation in compliance with the most recent USACE Manual for Delineating Wetlands in Conjunction with the Midwest Supplement. c. Delineations shall be subject to field verification by City staff, the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), and/or USACE. 2. No Loss and Exemption Applications: The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) No Loss and Exemption standards are covered in MnRule 8420.0410-.0420, as amended. Applications for No Loss or Exemption determinations shall follow the procedures and requirements of MnRule 8420. Wet areas created by human activity (“incidental wetlands”) as specified in MnRules 8420.0105 not intended to produce wetland shall not be regulated by this Ordinance. Wetlands that are exempt per the WCA shall not be regulated by the policies within this Ordinance. However, buffer zones and restoration of disturbed areas in conformance with this Ordinance may be required if the project is part of an overall land development plan. 3. Sequencing Application: An applicant proposing to impact wetlands must submit an application that demonstrates adherence to the Sequencing Standards outlined in MnRule 8420.0520. The applicant may submit a sequencing evaluation with the wetland replacement plan application or apply for a preliminary sequencing decision from the City, as per MnRule 8420.0325, as amended. 4. Replacement Plan Application: a. Concurrently with a sequencing application requesting a determination that wetland impacts are unavoidable, a replacement plan application shall be submitted for the activities requiring compensatory mitigation, including: i. Filling or draining of any wetland; ii. Excavating in the permanently or semi-permanently flooded areas of a type 3, 4, or 5 wetland; iii. Excavation that results in conversion to non-wetland. b. Wetland impacts that occur due to road improvement projects that address safety issues and are not undertaken solely to accommodate additional traffic capacity by the City or County as the local road authority may be eligible to be replaced by BWSR through the Local Government Wetland Replacement Program (LGRWRP). c. The lost functions and values of the wetland impacted must be replaced in conformance with the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Section X: Wetland Replacement. E. Local Government Unit Decision Authority: Wetland applications decisions shall be determined as follows: 1. City staff has the administrative authority to approve wetland boundary, wetland type, no loss, and exemption applications. 2. City staff has the administrative authority to approve sequencing and replacement plans that impact less than 10,000 square feet of wetlands. 3. City staff may request the City Council review and approve any applications listed in Subsections 11-7-3 E.1. and E.2. 4. The City Council shall approve all sequencing and replacement plans that impact 10,000 square feet or greater of wetlands. F. Appeals of Wetland Application Decisions: Appeals of decisions of applications submitted under Section 11-7-3 D. made by the City will follow the appeal process in accordance with MnRule 8420, as amended. G. Wetland Buffers 1. Buffer Establishment: a. Application: Any property in which an application has been required under Subsection 11-7-3 B. and has been determined to have a wetland that has been classified under Subsection 11-7-3 C. shall submit a Buffer Zone Establishment and Management Plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved subject to the standards described in the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Subsections VIII.B.2. and X.B. b. Continued Maintenance: The maintenance and vegetation performance of the Buffer shall be subject to the standards of Section X. of the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan: Wetland Monitoring. Once established, activities in buffer zones that are not associated with the approved Plan that disturb the roots or influence the growth of the vegetation, such as grading, mowing, landscaping and planting, fertilizing, spraying (herbicides), and seeding or sodding are prohibited. Herbicides and controlled burns or other management practices used to control noxious weeds or invasive species will be allowed only with permission from the City Engineer. Enhancement of the buffer zone through installation of additional native plantings is allowed and encouraged. 2. Buffer Zone Widths by Wetland Classification: a. Preserve: 75 Feet. b. Manage 1: 50 Feet. c. Manage 2: 30 Feet. d. Manage 3: i. Non-Agricultural Area: 15 Feet ii. Agricultural Area: None. 3. Buffer Averaging: Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Subsection VIII.B.1. describes functions of buffer zones. A property owner may request an adjustment to the Buffer Zone Widths regulation in Subsection 11-7-3 D.2. through Buffer Averaging to determine an alternate Buffer Width approved by the City Engineer subject to the following standards: a. The Buffer Averaging improves the buffer zone function. b. The Buffer Zone Prioritization Review described with the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan subsection VII.B.1. 4. Structural Setback from Buffer Zone: 30 Feet. 5. Conservation Easements: Buffer zones will be contained within a conservation easement that includes both the wetland and the buffer zone. 6. Buffer Zone Monuments: The installation of monuments which mark the outer edge of the wetland buffer zones. All markers and their placement shall be per city specification or approved by the City Engineer. H. Storm Water Pre-Treatment: To alleviate the sediment and nutrient loading of wetlands, storm water pretreatment shall be required based on wetland classification as follows: 1. Preserve: Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required, consider diversion if possible. 2. Manage 1: Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required. 3. Manage 2: Sediment pretreatment required. 4. Manage 3: Pretreatment to NPDES standards (per Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules) is required if these standards apply to the project. I. Enforcement: WCA enforcement shall be in conformance with MnRule 8240. J. Lots in Existence Before July 21, 1998: The City first adopted the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan on July 21, 1998. A lot which is part of a subdivision or plat, an auditor's subdivision or a registered land survey; or a parcel of land not so platted, for which a deed has been recorded in the Dakota County recorder's office prior to July 21, 1998 shall not be required to meet the standards of Subsections 11-7-3 C., D., E., and G. For the lots that existed before the July 21, 1998, the following standards shall be required: 1. Buffer Zone: 15 Feet. 2. Structural Setback from Buffer Zone: 15 Feet. 3. Buffer Maintenance: Activities 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 or invasive species will be allowed only with permission from the City Engineer. Enhancement of the buffer zone through installation of additional native plantings is allowed and encouraged. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 5th day of October, 2021. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ______________________ William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Erin Fasbender, City Clerk