Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CASE # ~ <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />CONSIDER RATIFYING THE MUNICIPAL WETLAND MANAGEMENT <br />CLASSIFICATION MAP; CASE OF CITY OF RAMSEY <br />By: Chris Anderson, Environmental Coordinator <br /> <br />Ba"ckground: <br /> <br />As you :may recall, in October of 2005, the City Council adopted a wetland buffer ordinance that <br />is triggered when a property is proposed for development. The ordinance requires that a <br />vegetative buffer be retained or established around the delineated boundary of a wetland. The <br />required width of the vegetative buffer is related to the overall quality of a wetland; higher <br />quality wetlands require a wider buffer than lower quality wetlands. The ordinance outlines four <br />(4) management categories, Preserve, Manage 1, Manage 2, and Manage 3, and each category <br />has a specific minimum required buffer width. <br /> <br />The following item is enclosed for your information: <br /> <br />a) Draft Municipal Wetland Management Classification Map <br /> <br />Notification: <br /> <br />The lJublic hearing was properly advertised in the Anoka County Union. <br /> <br />Observations: <br /> <br />In conjunction with the wetland buffer ordinance, the City hired Peterson Environmental <br />Consulting, which has since merged -with Westwood Professional Services (WPS), to conduct a <br />wetland functions and values study. The purpose of the study was to assess all wetlands within <br />the City (at least 0.25 acre in size) using the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM), <br />a classification system developed by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Based. <br />on those assessments, each wetland was placed into one of the four management categories. <br />WPS has compiled the results of this study and prepared a final report and draft municipal <br />wetland management classification map. <br /> <br />349 wetlands throughout the City were inventoried and of these, 136 were field verified. Each <br />wetland was reviewed and assigned a management classification based on the aforementioned <br />:MnRAM process. Forty (40) wetlands were classified as Preserve, forty-six (46) were classified <br />as Manage 1, 127 were classified as Manage 2 and 130 were classified as Manage 3 (through <br />field assessments, six wetlands proved to be non-wetland areas). <br /> <br />The data collected as a result of this study can be utilized in many ways. Obviously, this <br />information will be relied upon when the City receives a development proposal for property <br />containing wetlands. Additional benefits may include identifying wetlands that are suitable <br />candidates for restoration and/or desirable for future parkland and open space. Private land <br /> <br />13 <br />