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

Home

Case #2: Adopt Resolution Ratifying the Municipal Wetland Management Classification Map; Case of city of Ramsey Environmental Coordinator Anderson reviewed that in October of 2005, Council adopted a wetland buffer ordinance that is triggered when a property is proposed for development. The ordinance requires a vegetative buffer be retained or established around the delineated boundary of a wetland. The required width of the vegetative buffer is related to the overall quality of a wetland, determined through the application of the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM), which is an assessment method that was developed by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). Higher quality wetlands require a wider buffer than lower quality wetlands. The ordinance outlines four management categories: Preserve, Manage 1, Manage 2, and Manage 3, and each category has a specific minimum required buffer width. Mr. Anderson stated in conjunction with the wetland buffer ordinance, the City hired Peterson Environmental Consulting, which has since merged with Westwood Professional Services (WPS), to conduct a wetland functions and values study. The purpose of the study was to assess all wetlands within the City using the MnRAM system. Through various existing data sources, such as aerial photography, soils data, and County Biological Survey data, each wetland was preliminarily placed into one of the four management categories. Wetlands that were preliminarily classified as Preserve through Manage l/Manage 2, plus a dozen or so other wetlands were then field verified to ensure these higher quality wetlands were accurately categorized. WPS has compiled the results of this study and prepared a final report and draft municipal wetland management classification map. Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated a total of 349 wetlands throughout the City were inventoried and assessed and of these, 136 were field verified. Ultimately, 40 wetlands were classified as Preserve, 46 were classified as Manage 1, 127 were classified as Manage 2 and 130 were classified as Manage 3. Through field assessments, six wetlands were proven to be non- wetland areas. Mr. Anderson stated the Environmental Policy Board (EPB) reviewed the draft municipal wetland management classification map 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 or downgraded as a result of the ground-truthing. Environmental Coordinator Anderson indicated 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 is the one main function that really requires field verification; however, most, if not all, of the other 15 functions included in the MnRAM process can be at least partially assessed through existing data. Mr. Anderson stated the EPB discussed options regarding those wetlands that have yet to be field verified. One option suggested 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 City Council / April 24, 2007 Page 16 of 38