Minutes from 1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes September 16, 1993 Page 9 Schultz commented on the potential for an entrepreneur to purchase all banked wetland, forcing developers to purchase it at an exorbitant rate. The Administrative Secretary suggested the Board consider a policy which requires the purchased wetland to be used within a certain time period (6 months) to avoid this potential. Ottensmann agreed someone could purchase wetland as an investment opportunity, or the original owner of the land may do the same thing. The Administrative Secretary agreed and added she has already had calls from developers asking if anyone has wetlands banked which are available. Jankowski indicated the LRRWMO should be responsible for identifying how much wetland is banked when a project permit is considered so a list of available wetland can be provided to the developer, if needed. He added the LRRWMO will also need notification of any transfer of wetland ownership. The Board discussed whether wetland mitigation must occur within the same municipality or watershed district. Jankowski indicated a preference for not allowing wetlands to be available to other municipalities. Haas noted the Coon Creek Watershed is allowing other cities to use mitigated wetland. The Administrative Secretary clarified that Kathy Brehm, DNR Conservation Officer, indicated mitigation can take place within the entire watershed. Weaver suggested BWSR be contacted regarding this issue to assure accurate answers regarding banking mitigation. He added he will take this on as a project and report back at the next meeting. Schultz indicated BWSR did provide a mitigation record keeping form but it was not adequate to keep track of all mitigation issues. The Board reviewed the worksheet draft prepared by the Administrative Secretary and suggested columns be added to indicate the type of wetland mitigated. Ottensmann left the meeting at 10:10 a.m. The Administrative Secretary indicated there may potentially be a time when this Board allows cities to have a negative mitigation project (as the county can currently do), and asked if a mitigation policy should be established which outlines steps to be taken and requiring documentation if acreage is purchased and ownership transferred. The Board then held a general discussion regarding the need to track the "type" of wetland or "points" given to assure mitigation occurs on an equal basis. The Administrative Secretary reported the DNR Cease and Desist Orders do not include information regarding acreage involved, type of wetland, etc. Haas agreed this type of information needs to be included, as well as requiring the violator to get the wetland delineated.