Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Kampbell indicated the classifications of some wetlands did change after field inspection. <br />The major change occurred due to the ability to assess the vegetation. Vegetation within the <br />wetlands plays a large role in the function of wetlands. There were three wetlands that were <br />downgraded from Preserve to Manage 1, 39 downgraded from Manage 1 to Manage 2, and 1 <br />downgraded from Manage 1 to Manage 3. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked if there were any wetlands upgraded based on site inspections. <br /> <br />Ms. Kampbell replied there were 25 wetlands upgraded from Manage 1 and Manage 2 to <br />Preserve. She indicated only wetlands preliminarily classified as Manage 1 and Preserve were <br />field assessed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer inquired if it is typical to inspect this ratio of about 1/3 of the wetlands <br />with this type ofwetlanc;l study. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson replied he has not been involved in a functions and values study in the past where <br />they did not look at all of the wetlands. The City was provided with the cost estimate for looking <br />at al~ the wetlands versus the subset. The City selected to proceed with field assessments of the <br />subset. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer questioned what would be considered to be a statistically reliable sample <br />of the 349 wetlands to determine the classifications. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson replied it would be preferred to walk all of the wetlands. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer questioned what answer should be given to the residents that will be <br />saying their wetland did not get classified right, as only 1/3 of the wetlands were inspected and <br />there is a 10% error rate in the classifications. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson replied he agrees it would be ideal to look at all of the wetlands. However, in the <br />way the City ordinance is written the City map indicates what the wetlands should be classified <br />as, and any landowner can bring in an expert to complete their own functions and values analysis <br />and request that the classification be changed. He has seen in other cities where people have <br />asked for changes to be made and the change is granted if the evidence is there. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer clarified with Mr. Peterson that the reason for the margin of error was the <br />cost of the study. He requested information regarding the cost percentages involved Witll the <br />study. <br /> <br />1;nvironmental Coordinator Anderson indicated the cost for the amount of wetlands tllat were <br />field surveyed was approximately $55,000. There would be a significant jump in cost to inspect <br />all of the wetlands, which is part of the reason the City focused on the classifications with the <br />highest ratings to be sure they were as accurate as possible. One discussion the EPB has had is <br />what options there are to look at the other wetlands that have not been field verified. One <br />possibility that came up was to make it a condition of development that wetlands that were not <br />physically inspected as part of this study be field reviewed during the delineation process. The <br /> <br />Planning Commission/AprilS, 2007 <br />Page 9 of 22 <br /> <br />P9 <br />