Agenda - Council - 04/24/2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

A total 349 wetlands throughout the City were inventoried and assessed and of these, 136 were field verified. Each wetland was reviewed and assigned a management classification based on the aforementioned MnRAM process. Ultimately, forty (40) wetlands were classified as Preserve, forty -six (46) were classified as Manage 1, 127 were classified as Manage 2 and 130 were classified as Manage 3 (through field assessments, six wetlands proved to be non - wetland areas). The data collected as a result of this study can be utilized in many ways. Obviously, this information will be relied upon when the City receives a development proposal for property containing wetlands. Additional benefits may include identifying wetlands that are suitable candidates for restoration and /or desirable for future parkland and open space. Private land owners of these areas could be contacted as to their interest in selling or donating these high quality areas to the City. The Environmental Policy Board (EPB) reviewed the draft municipal wetland management classification map at their March 5, 2007 meeting and recommended that it be forwarded to City Council for adoption. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the draft municipal wetland management classification map at their April 5, 2007 meeting. There was considerable discussion regarding the accuracy of classifications for wetlands that were not field verified. The major concern was that a number of preliminary wetland classifications were either upgraded (25) or downgraded (41) as a result of the ground - truthing (six areas were actually downgraded to non - wetland status). Recommendation: Regarding the concern of accurate classifications of wetlands not field verified, the preliminary classifications were based on a comprehensive review of existing data that provided a good foundation for the initial classification. Vegetative diversity /integrity (the mix of wetland vegetation compared to a wetland of the same type under undisturbed conditions) is the one main function that really requires field verification; however, most, if not all, of the other fifteen (15) functions included in the MnRAM process can be at least partially assessed through existing data. The Environmental Policy Board had discussed options regarding those wetlands that have yet to be field - verified. Several possibilities emerged from that discussion. One option was for the City to find additional funds to complete the field assessments. The second, and preferred option, would be to require a developer to complete a MnRAM analysis, with a city- approved wetland/environmental scientist, whenever a development is proposed on lands containing wetlands that were not ground - truthed or there are wetlands on adjoining property that may be affected by the development. Finally, of the roughly 200 wetlands that were not field- verified, a little more than half were classified as Manage 3, the lowest management category. Field verification of these wetlands could only result in confirming that classification or upgrading it to a higher functioning wetland. Additionally, it is important to note that the wetland buffer ordinance does include an appeals process if a property owner /developer disputes a management classification.