Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Dehen clarified the delineation requirement kicks in at the time of development. <br />The edge of the property is delineated by the developer, and this classification would indicate the <br />distance to the higher ground as to what can be done with that property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen replied that is correct. The EPB said the biggest priority would be on <br />those wetlands that are very high quality and have not been impacted; these wetlands should <br />have the widest buffer to protect them. The buffer diminishes as the quality of the wetland <br />decreases. Instead of a "one size fits all" approach, this was an attempt to categorize and get the <br />best effect. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen questioned why there would not be verification done on the Manage 2 <br />and 3 wetlands. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen explained the cost to field verify all of the wetlands was cost <br />prohibitive. The decision was made to field verify the highest quality wetlands. She would like <br />to be able to field verify the rest of the wetlands if the additional funds were available. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen questioned if a wetland would be checked at the time of development if it <br />has not been done yet, and that the buffer would be verified at that time. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen explained the wetlands would be categorized, and at the time of <br />development the delineating line at the edge of the wetland would be determined with the buffer <br />to that line based on the classification level. Field verification would not necessarily be needed <br />of the wetland category; that is what should be debated. . <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson suggested Mr. Peterson address his confidence level in the <br />wetland classifications based on the aerial photography and the GIS. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson stated in determining the classifications, WPS looked at all the functions that deal <br />with MnRAM 3.0. The only one that really depended on field review was floristic diversity and <br />integrity. All the others can be answered looking at aerial photography and GIS maps. His <br />understanding is that the ordinance leaves the door open to allow a contest to the functional <br />rating whether it has been field reviewed or not. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen asked how much subjectivity goes into the designation of a Manage 2 or <br />Manage 3 classification. He explained his concern is that the different communities will have <br />different Management 1 categories. He questioned if there is consistency in the rating that is <br />objective, as opposed to the person that is looking at the classification. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson replied the process WPS followed was developed by the Board of Water and Soil <br />Resources and the buffer widths that have been adopted emanate from their guidance. The state <br />has been trying to generate consistencies on these types of ordinances because in the past a lot of <br />communities had different ordinances with different buffers. This classification follows that <br />guidance for consistency. <br /> <br />City Council / April 24, 2007 <br />Page 21 of 38 <br />