HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2008 Env Bd Packet•
•
•
City of Lino Lakes
Environmental Board Meeting
November, 2008
6:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
September 24, 2008
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Open Mike
5. Action Items
There are no action items at this time.
6. Discussion Items
A. Rice Creek Watershed District Rule RMP- 3/Doug Thomas, RCWD Administrator
B. 2008/2009 Environmental Goals
C. Updates:
• J.R.'s Appliance Recycling tonnage information
• Blue Thumb Update
• Earth Day
• Other
7. Adjourn
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
CITY OF LINO LAKES
APPROVED MINUTES
DATE : September 24, 2008
TIME STARTED : 6:40 P.M.
TIME ENDED : 8:20 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT : Mary Jo O'Dea, Barbara Bor, Paula
Andrzejewski, Pamela Hartley, Kim Brouillet
and Martha DeHaven
MEMBERS ABSENT : Peter Brown
STAFF PRESENT : Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson
1. CALL TO ORDER
Ms. O'Dea called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 31, 2008
Ms. O'Dea had a change on page 3, 2nd paragraph: change the word Hurtles to
Hurdles. 8th paragraph: change For those who to Those who. Change lilly to lily.
Change homeowner to homeowners.
Mr. Andrzewski had a change on page 3, 5th paragraph: change thet to they. Page
4 delete paragraph three.
Ms. Hartley made a motion to approve the July 31, 2008 minutes with changes.
Ms. Bor seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Add to Discussion Item C: Roseville recycling subgroup stated Ms. Bor
Ms. Andrzejewski made a motion to approve the agenda. Ms. Brouillet seconded
the motion to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously
4. OPEN MIKE
Open mike closed at 6:41 p.m.
5. ACTION ITEMS
• None.
1 DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
6. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Green Building, Cindy Ojczyk
Ms. Ojczyk was present to discuss green building and remodeling as well as
present her power point presentation.
Ms. Ojczyk stated she is a Lino Lakes resident and has two businesses. One
business is Simply Green Design and the second business is Verified Green.
She went on to discuss elements of green design such as the following:
Sustainable Design: "Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Definition by the 1987
Bruntland Commission
Buildings are one of the heaviest consumers of natural resources and account for a
significant portion of the greenhouse gas emissions that affect climate change
There are 31,500 tons of construction waste and 3,000,000,000 tons of raw
materials used in construction annually in the US
There are many reasons for building green such as: fire safety, structural integrity,
means of egress, light, ventilation, heat, water, sanitation, electrical power and
gas. She stated Minnesota builds great buildings compared to other states.
There are risks to future generations such as: climate impact, embodies energy,
pollution, toxicity of materials, purification of Water, Heat Island Effect,
externalized costs of society, resource depletion, dependence of non - renewable
energy, loss of habitat, loss of biodiversity, loss of agricultural land and increased
transportation.
Value Lessons from Green Commercial Buildings
- Increased profitability energy, water storm water
- Increased durability
- Healthier occupant & environments = decrease sick leave
Marketing niche for attracting employees and tenants
Five Key Concepts:
- Energy Efficiency
- Water Conservation
-Site & Community Impact
- Indoor Environmental Quality
- Resource Efficiency
2 DRAFT MINUTES
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
Commonalities of Green Building Programs:
Mostly voluntary
Checklist based
Prerequisites & optional credits
Integrity of Building:
Third party verification
Training prior to use
Documentation of installation & process: photos, receipts, signatures
Commercial:
The State of Minnesota Sustainable Building: Buildings, Benchmarks & Beyond
U.S. Green Building Council
LEED for New Construction
LEED for Existing Buildings
LEED for Commercial Interiors
LEED for Schools
LEED: Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
Residential:
mngreenstar (logo) MN GreenStar — January, 2008 Creation of MN GreenStar the
non - profit organization
Minnesota green communities — a national program for affordable housing
Green Community:
LEED for Neighborhood Development
MN GreenStar Cities Initiative:
- Provide a "pathway to sustainability" — cost - effective and pragmatic best
practices for local governments to achieve superior outcomes in a broad range of
sustainable practices, focusing on energy and including water, building,
transportation, and development.
- Help direct local governments to tools for financial, educational, and technical
assistance.
Green Building Process — Prerequisites:
- Submit all required documentation for a plan review prior to start or construction
- List of items from GreenStar
Green Star offers optimal credits for such things as insulation and overhangs on
homes.
Process - Preconstruction Plan Review & Registration:
- Construction Drawings
- Specifications
3 DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
- Safety testing results: radon, CO
- Preliminary checklist
- Energy modeling or testing: blower door, infrared
- Erosion control plan
- Waste management plan
- Site plan
- Landscape plan
- Water conservation plan
Process can be easy or hard. Depending on strategies that are applied.
Look at adding investment and time:
Process:
On -site verification and documentation, rater verification performance testing,
photographs, signatures, receipts and invoices.
Cost of GreenStar Certification: Take a $300,000 new construction home and
make it a LEED certified home would cost $8,500.
Homeowner Benefits:
Water and energy go down, carbon monoxide, radon, etc. go down. Increased
borrowing opportunities, increase selling opportunities, increased risk
management and align with personal values.
Contractors Benefits: Home Energy Rating System Index
Community Benefits:
Reduced water, energy, waste
Decrease storm water & heat island affect
Healthier buildings: radon, CO, VOC
Decreased pollution from auto transit
Building to future standards
Product and Manufacturer responsibility
Why Green: Accountability of people to the plant.
Ms. Bor stated there is a mixed use proposed development on the east side of the
city. It seems that there is opportunity before preplanning to work with city staff
to at least consider incorporating.
Mr. Asleson stated the biggest problem is the building code is black and white.
• Ms. Bor stated she is not sure how it will get developed or by who at this point.
4 DRAFT MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
• Ms. Brouillet recommended having a development day to inform staff of Green
Building opportunities
•
•
Mr. Asleson stated that builders are not always on the same page.
Ms. Ojczyk stated there will be green building training in the near future.
Ms. Bor stated the concept is when builder's come to city, they know the process.
She stated at the time when applying for a building permit they have already
invested in plans and by then it is almost too late.
B. Blue Heron Days Parade wrap -up
Ms. Hartley recommended additional volunteers to help with garbage pick up.
She suggested dividing volunteers up and having a few start where the parade
ends and a few start where the parade begins and work toward each other.
Ms. Bor suggested next year the board should have a visible banner and brighter
colored shirt.
C. Recycling Reports
Mr. Asleson stated the oil recycling station at1189 Main Street has been shut
down due to pcbs that were dumped into our tank. Mr. Asleson stated he filed a
police report for vandalism.
Other recycling and solid waste issues: Shoreview recycling subgroup will be
tabled until our next meeting:
Ms. O'Dea stated she would like to see parameters for families on their water bills
to be able to understand water usage for a family of four or five, etc. Ms. Bor
stated an article should be put in the Lino Lakes Newsletter and/or website. Mr.
Asleson stated we will look into having information in the upcoming newsletter.
Blue Thumb Update — Add this item to next meeting agenda.
7. ADJOURN
It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on October
29, 2008.
There being no further business, Ms. Brouillet moved to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. Ms.
Andrzejewski seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
5 DRAFT MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
• Transcribed by:
Lisa Hogstad
Community Development Secretary
•
•
6 DRAFT MINUTES
• G) A
Memorandum
To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board
From: Marty Asleson
Date: 11/13/2008
Re: RULE RMP -3
Attached is a copy of cover letter to the Rule RMP -3 review distribution list, and Rule
RMP -3. Please notice that comments to RCWD Board of Managers must be submitted
to the attention of Mr. Douglas Thomas by December 12th and a public hearing
regarding the rule will take place at 9:00 AM., November 26, 2008, in Council
Chambers, Shoreview City Hall at 4600 Victoria Street North, Shoreview MN.
The new rule is exclusive to the City of Lino Lakes and the Resources Management
Plan. The review and comment on this document is also one of the 2008 Goals for the
Lino Lakes Environmental Board. Doug Thomas, RCWD Administrator will be at the
Environmental Board Meeting to go through new Rule with you.
1
RICL CREEK( WATERSHED DISTRICT
October 23, 2008
To Distribution List (Attached):
4325 Pheasant Ridge Dr. NE #611 • Blaine, MN 55449 -4539
Phone 763 - 398 -3070 • Fax: 763 - 398 -3088
www.ricecreek.org
The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) recently completed a resource
management plan (RMP) for an area within the City of Lino Lakes.1 The area
addressed by the RMP encompasses 15 "resource management units" or
subwatershed areas within Lino Lakes and much of the area drained by four
public ditch systems: Anoka County Ditches 10- 22 -32, 25, 55 and 72.
On September 24, 2008, the RMP was approved by the Minnesota Board of
Water and Soil Resources as a comprehensive wetland protection and
management plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §103G.2243 and Minnesota
Rules 8420.0650. These laws require that the RMP be implemented through an
adopted rule. The enclosed proposed rule, Rule RMP -3, is for this purpose.
This letter offers an overview of the purposes and terms of the proposed rule. A
reading of the RMP itself, however, is recommended for the much greater detail
it provides. The RMP is available at the RCWD offices or at www.ricecreek.org.
The proposed rule has been approved by the RCWD Board of Managers for
distribution and solicitation of public comments. The RCWD invites your review
and comment. Written comments must be submitted to my attention by
December 12, 2008. In addition, the RCWD Board of Managers will hold a public
hearing on the proposed rule at 9:00 a.m., November 26, 2008, in Council
Chambers, Shoreview City Hall, 4600 Victoria Street North, Shoreview MN.
1 "Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan" (June 2008).
BOARD OF
MANAGERS
Barbara A. Haake
Ramsey County
Rick A. Mastell
Anoka County
Susan R. Oven Patricia L Preiner John J. Waller
Ramsey County Anoka County Washington County
® Printed on 60% recycled 30% post- consumer paper using vegxrable based ink
•
If formally adopted by the RCWD Board, the RMP and this rule would govern
impacts from land disturbances, including wetland filling, excavation and
draining, within the RMP area. Regulation of wetland impacts under this rule
would be in place of the general terms of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act (WCA). The rule would apply only to the geographic area in the City of Lino
Lakes encompassed by the RMP, as represented in Figure 1 of the proposed
rule. It is also intended that components of the RMP will be incorporated into
the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Section 404 permit evaluations as a means to
achieve a higher level of permitting consistency.
Background. The permitting process described in the rule would replace
individual permitting under existing RCWD Rules C (stormwater management)
and F (wetland alteration). A single application would be submitted in which all
stormwater and wetland impacts would be considered and addressed.
The RMP assesses the role that water and related natural resources play within
the RMP area. This assessment is used to develop an approach to managing
surface resources and public drainage systems consistent with the Lino Lakes
planning and regulatory framework. The RCWD's RMP effort follows from Lino
Lakes comprehensive land use planning. The goal is to provide for the surface
hydrology that will serve existing, continuing and anticipated new land uses for
the foreseeable future without injuring the natural hydrological system of the
watershed or the functions it provides.
The most substantial difference from the RCWD's general permitting rules is the
framework to determine wetland replacement obligations when wetlands are
filled or drained for development. Because the RMP rests on the RCWD's
assessment of the role that wetland areas play in the overall health of the
subwatershed, the replacement requirements create significant incentives to
direct unavoidable wetland impacts to wetlands that play a Tess important
watershed role, and to direct required wetland replacement and preservation to
areas in which the functioning of the hydrologic system will be best enhanced.
Because the watershed -based approach recognizes the role of the riparian edge
in the hydrologic system, replacement credit also is offered for preservation or
enhancement of wetland buffer and habitat area.
RCWD Rule RMP -3
SONAR Letter
October 23, 2008
2
This framework of guiding where wetland impact and replacement may occur is
intended to have the effect of reestablishing larger, contiguous areas of wetland
and riparian edge. As the other side of the same coin, it would afford
landowners more flexibility to create larger contiguous areas of upland for use
and development than reasonably could be fashioned under standard parcel -
based wetland permitting. This is one of several respects in which the RCWD
believes that Rule RMP -3 will provide benefits to landowners as compared with
standard wetland permitting, while also yielding greater water resource
protection. The RMP discusses this in more detail.
A Rule RMP -3 permit would be required in three instances:
• - When a landowner will do work in, or work that wholly or partly drains, a
wetland within the RMP area;
• When 10,000 square feet of hard surface will be created within the RMP
area; or
• When grading with motorized equipment will after the rate or volume of
surface runoff into a wetland within the RMP area.
The terms of Rule RMP -3, briefly, are as follows:
Wetland Impacts and Replacement. The proposed rule retains the requirement
of both WCA and 5404 of the federal Clean Water Act that before wetland
impact may be authorized (with required replacement of wetland function and
acreage), a landowner first must justify impact through a "sequencing" analysis
that explores the ability to avoid and minimize wetland impact.
As a part of sequencing, the rule contains provisions establishing guidelines for
a preliminary concept plan review. This preliminary review is not required, but
is encouraged. It is an opportunity for the RCWD, the Technical Evaluation Panel
and the City of Lino Lakes (along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when
Clean Water Act §404 is applicable), to review a development proposal more
informally and to work with the landowner toward a design that minimizes
impact on the functions of hydrologic systems (such as habitat, water quality,
flow attenuation, flood storage and recreation) and is conducive to sound
stormwater management. One result of this process will be to facilitate formal
3
RCWD Rule RMP -3
SONAR Letter
October 23, 2008
•
•
•
review and permit issuance. The intent is to reduce landowner cost and improve
the efficiency of both state and federal wetland permitting.
Once wetland impact is justified, obligations to replace affected wetland acreage
and function are determined in a manner similar to that under WCA. The
methodology to determine wetland impacts and replacement requirements,
however, reflects the extensive assessment the RCWD has done of the surface
hydrologic systems within the RMP area.
The extent of wetland replacement required will be greatly influenced by the
locations of wetland impact and replacement in relation to the higher priority
wetland within the area referred to as Wetland Preservation Corridor (WPC).
Figure 1 of Rule RMP -3 delineates the WPC at a regional scale. WPC is defined
in the rule as contiguous wetland community with high vegetative integrity
determined using accepted wetland functional assessment methods, as well as
other wetland meeting this criterion that is within 50 feet of the contiguous
wetland area.
The regional scale WPC is a starting point. As part of an application, a
landowner will be required to identify initial, "normal" WPC boundaries more
precisely by performing a vegetative integrity assessment at a parcel scale. The
boundaries determined, therefore, may be narrower in places, or more
expansive in places, than the boundaries shown on Figure 1. As a result of the
landowner's wetland impact and replacement decisions reflected in the
approved project design, and possibly as a result of other project consequences
such as hydrology changes, the WPC boundaries at the close of project activity
may differ from the initial WPC boundaries. In this case, the landowner will be
required to prepare and submit a final WPC map.
Impacts to wetland within a WPC must be replaced at a higher acreage ratio than
impacts outside of a WPC. Similarly, replacement within a WPC receives a higher
acreage credit than replacement that is not. This approach is intended to
protect and enhance those wetland and riparian resources that lie within a
contiguous corridor of existing and restorable wetlands with the potential to
provide high function and public value.
RCWD Rule RMP -3
SONAR Letter
October 23, 2008
4
The rule identifies those WCA provisions that will be replaced by the RMP and
those that will continue to apply. The agricultural, wetland restoration, utilities,
de minimis and wildlife habitat exemptions of WCA will remain available. The
drainage exemption will apply if the applicant demonstrates that there will be
no hydrological impact to a high - quality plant community type within the WPC.
The incidental wetland exemption will apply provided the area was not wetland
before human disturbance.
As indicated above, replacement wetland requirements will be determined on
the basis of several factors. First, the ratio of replacement wetland acres to
acres of impact will be fixed on the basis of the type of wetland plant
community type that is to be disturbed. Then, if the impact is within the WPC,
the replacement acreage will be further increased. In summary, replacement
ratios will range from 1:1 to 3:1 (replacement acres: impact acres).
Replacement requirements for partly drained wetland will be based on an
analysis of the impact of the partial drainage on wetland function.
Activities that may be used to meet replacement obligations include hydrologic
and vegetative restoration of partly or wholly drained wetland; establishment
and protection of upland buffer or habitat area adjacent to wetland; vegetation
restoration within the WPC; and preservation of wetland with "exceptional
natural resource value" pursuant to WCA guidance. Credit for acres restored or
protected ranges from 25 percent to 100 percent of actual acreage. If the
replacement area is not within the WPC, the credit is diminished by half. The
replacement plan also will provide for a WPC that includes habitat and
stormwater management corridors consistent with the strategies for each
resource management unit as delineated and described in the RMP.
Finally, RMP -3 would state the criteria for when a replacement wetland or
upland habitat area has been considered "established." At least 50 percent of
the native species in the planting plan must be established, there must be at
least 80 percent areal coverage, and the vegetation must achieve a medium or
high plant community ranking.
Certain public road projects would not be subject to the wetland replacement,
replacement credit banking or wetland buffer terms of Rule RMP -3, but instead
would be evaluated under District Rule F. Projects in this category are those on
5
RCWD Rule RMP -3
SONAR Letter
October 23, 2008
•
•
roads classified as rural principal arterials, rural minor arterials, rural major
collectors, urban principal arterials, urban minor arterials, rural minor collectors
and urban collectors. Rule F, as recently revised and readopted by the RCWD,
incorporates terms better suited to address the specific circumstances of work
on roadways with these classifications.
Wetland Replacement Credit Banking. A wetland replacement obligation may be
satisfied in whole or part by the use of banked wetland credits created through
prior actions. However, only credits created by actions within the RMP area may
be used to satisfy a replacement requirement for wetland impacts within the
RMP area. Conversely, replacement credits created within the RMP area may be
banked for use either within or outside of the RMP area.
Because replacement credits under Rule RMP -3 will be calculated differently
from those under WCA rules (Minnesota Rules 8420), credits created within the
RMP area that the holder would like to have available for use either within or
outside of that area will need to be calculated under both "currencies." For use
outside of the RMP area, the holder will follow the standard banking procedures
specified in WCA rules and deposit credits with the Minnesota Board of Water
and Soil Resources. At a holder's request, the RCWD also will calculate credits
under Rule RMP -3 and maintain a record of such credits for potential use within
the RMP.
Vegetated Buffers on Wetlands and Upland Habitat Area. A declaration recorded
on the title for the property would establish a vegetated buffer around all
wetlands within the WPC and around other buffer and upland habitat area for
which the property owner is receiving replacement credit. Vegetated buffer is a
strip of land bordering a waterbody in which primarily native or restored
vegetation is maintained largely undisturbed, and serves a critical role in
protecting water resources. Buffers stabilize the wetland edge; prevent erosion;
filter nutrients, sediments and other pollutants from storm flows; moderate
peak flows into and within the wetland; regulate temperatures; preserve aquatic
and terrestrial habitat; protect scenic resources, and maintain property values.
The buffer would need to average 50 feet in width, but could be as narrow as 25
feet at any point. It would be identified by monuments at least every 200 feet.
Monumentation alternatives are proposed for public land or right -of -way. Also,
6
RCWD Rule RMP -3
SONAR Letter
October 23, 2008
a public agency permittee could choose to execute a maintenance agreement in
place of a recorded declaration.
Within the buffer, a property owner generally would not be permitted to mow
vegetation, engage in cultivation or pasturing, apply fertilizer or engage in
similar disturbances. However, a property owner could engage in periodic
cutting, remove diseased and invasive species, and otherwise manage the buffer
in accordance with a written plan approved by RCWD staff. Structures and hard
surface would be prohibited within the buffer and habitat area, as would filling
and excavating. The proposed rule contains limited exceptions for suspended
structures, public utilities, stormwater management features and trails for non -
motorized use.
The proposed rule also would allow a buffer to be regraded if done in
accordance with certain conditions. These include rigorous erosion control;
preservation of wooded buffer and canopy trees; a design that when
implemented enhances sheet flow and improves buffer function; a revegetation
plan establishing primarily native vegetation; and a three -year maintenance
obligation.
Stormwater Management. The existing requirements of RCWD Rule C largely
will apply. The chief difference is a specific focus on restoration and use of
natural wetland systems, without impact on the ecological function of those
systems, to limit and help manage runoff volume increases as the subwatershed
develops.
Activity meeting any of the three criteria listed in bullets on page 3 of this letter
would need to meet stormwater requirements. Rule C exempts from stormwater
requirements work on Tots smaller than one acre (industrial, commercial,
institutional or multi -unit residential development) or five acres (single - family
residential development), as well as single - family house construction. These
exceptions would not apply under Rule RMP -3.
Both Rule C and Rule RMP -3 require, for water quality and stormwater volume
control purposes, infiltration or retention on -site of the runoff within the
contributing area from a 2.8 -inch rainfall (two -year event). RMP -3 requires that
0.5- inches of this be achieved by reestablishing drained wetland, restoring
7
RCWD Rule RMP -3
SONAR Letter
October 23, 2008
•
•
•
•
degraded wetland, restoring or conserving adjacent upland buffer or habitat,
disconnecting impervious surfaces from direct discharge to stormwater
conveyances, or soil amendment /tilling.
Analogous to wetland "banking" permitted under WCA, volume control from
reestablishing drained wetland, restoring degraded wetland or restoring
adjacent upland beyond volume control needed to meet the 2.8 -inch standard
may be "banked." Banked volume control credits may be used to meet Rule
RMP -3 requirements on a later project within the RMP area by the property
owner or, pursuant to private credit sale or transfer, another property owner.
Public road projects would not be evaluated under the stormwater quality and
volume control requirements of Rule RMP -3. Instead, they would continue to be
evaluated under Rule C. Rule C, as recently revised and readopted, incorporates
a stormwater quality and volume control framework specifically suited to the
conditions of public roadway work.
Soil amendment, excavation and filling during development must avoid
impeding groundwater flow. Once development is completed, plowed snow
must be stored so that it does not drain to wetlands without pretreatment. This
commitment would be memorialized in a declaration recorded on the developed
property.
Easement. The RCWD intends, in conjunction with interested public and private
parties, to evaluate and potentially undertake activities to improve and maintain
the hydrology and vegetation within the WPC and its associated upland buffer
and habitat area. The RCWD, as drainage authority, will continue to maintain
the hydraulic efficiency of public drainage systems within the RMP area to
preserve their function for the benefit of property owners. Consistent with that,
it also reserves the authority to take actions to protect against flooding and
enhance the area's wetland ecology.
Accordingly, the proposed rule provides for each property owner to convey to
the RCWD an easement over wetland within the WPC and associated upland
designated as buffer or habitat area. The easement would allow the RCWD to
enter, perform work and install structures for the purposes described above.
Because the easement would apply only to undevelopable portions of properties
RCWD Rule RMP -3
SONAR Letter
October 23, 2008
8
within the RMP and upland areas voluntarily designated by the property owner,
and because of the benefit that the RMP will create for property owners, the
RCWD believes that this requirement is fair and reasonable.
Partial Abandonment. The RMP is designed, and will be implemented, in
recognition of the RCWD's responsibility to maintain the public drainage
systems within the RMP area. In RMP implementation, there may be cases in
which property development consistent with the RMP calls for a portion of a
system to be realigned. One means to do this involves construction of a new
alignment in conjunction with abandonment of the old alignment, a process that
by statute must be initiated by petition of the property owner. The rule
therefore would permit the RCWD to direct a property owner to petition for
partial abandonment when necessary to implement the RMP. The partial
abandonment would not compromise the rights that the property owner or any
other property owner has to the maintenance of the public system.
Sureties. For the purpose of clarification, Rule RMP -3 also would state criteria
for when the RCWD will release project- required sureties.
Again, I welcome your careful review and submission of comments to my
attention. The BWSR- approved RMP may be reviewed at the RCWD offices or
accessed through the RCWD website, www.ricecreek.org.
Sincerely,
Doug Thomas
District Administrator
9
RCWD Rule RMP -3
SONAR Letter
October 23, 2008
•
•
•
Distribution List
City Managers /Administrators /Clerks within RCWD
Mr. Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council
Ms. Judy Sventek, Metropolitan Council
Mr. Steve Woods, Board Of Water And Soil Resources
Ms. Melissa Lewis, Board Of Water And Soil Resources
Mr. Emmett Mullin, Regional Planner, Department of Natural Resources
Ms. Becky Balk, Ag Resources Mgmt, MDA
Mr. John Wells, MN Environmental Quality Board
Mr. Art Persons, MN Dept Of Health
Mr. Nick Tiedeken, MN Department of Transportation
Mr. David L. Johnson, MPCA Regional Div.- Watershed Sec.
Ms. Tamara Cameron, Regulatory Branch, Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Dennis Rodacker, Anoka Conservation District
Ms. Beth D. Neuendorf, P.E., MNDOT Metro District Water Resources Engineer
Ms. Catherine Garra, EPA
Mr. Richard P. Johnson, County Administrator, Hennepin County
Mr. James Schug, County Administrator, Washington County
Mr. David J. Twa, Ramsey County Manager, Ramsey County Court House
Mr. Terry Johnson, County Administrator, Anoka County
Mr. Doug Fischer, County Engineer, Anoka County Highway Department
Ms. Jyneen Thatcher, Washington Conservation District
Ms. Amanda Strommer, Sr. Env. Spec., Washington County Public Health &
Environment
Mr. Donald C. Wisniewski, P.E., Washington County Transp. & Physical Dev.
Mr. Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Ramsey County Public Works
Mr. Tom Petersen, Ramsey Conservation District
Hennepin County, Public Works Facility
RCWD Rule RMP -3
SONAR Letter
October 23, 2008
10
•
•
•
RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
BOARD OF MANAGERS
RULE RMP -3
Implementing Lino Lakes
Resource Management Plan
(Adopted ________, 2008)
PREAMBLE The Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan (LL RMP) came about
through a partnership between the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) and
the City of Lino Lakes. This collaboration was initiated in 2006 and included
extensive coordination between the City, the Watershed and other regulatory
agencies. The LL RMP provides a watershed -based approach to wetland
management that is consistent with RCWD goals. The approach uniquely
addresses management in the context of wetland functions and the effects of
anticipated future land use. The RMP was developed in close coordination with
state and federal permitting authorities and has been prepared to be consistent
with both state and federal wetland regulations. It is intended that components
of the plan be incorporated into Clean Water Act Section 404 permit evaluations.
The approach is unique as a means to develop a comprehensive wetland
management plan according to the State of Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
because it not only includes the required assessment of existing wetland
functions and values, but it also forecasts future functions in Tight of anticipated
land use and watershed -based approaches for no net Toss of wetland function.
This Rule implements the Lino Lakes RMP by providing maximum consistency
with Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) requirements for a
Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan and no net Toss in acreage and
function of wetland resources. The Rule may be considered by the Corps in
meeting Federal Clean Water Act requirements for Section 404. Because the
RMP was coordinated with multiple Total Maximum Daily Load studies, it
provides an implementation strategy for those efforts. The RMP provides a
watershed -based context to the public Ditch Repair process proceeding on a
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 1
October 8, 2008
parallel track. The RMP also provided guidance to the City of Lino Lakes for
ecologically -based land use decisions during their Comprehensive Plan and
storm water management plan update process.
This framework of guiding where wetland impact and replacement may occur is
intended to have the effect of reestablishing larger, contiguous areas of wetland
and riparian edge. As the other side of the same coin, it would afford
landowners more flexibility to create larger contiguous areas of upland for use
and development than reasonably could be fashioned under standard parcel -
based wetland permitting. This is one of several respects in which the RCWD
believes that Rule RMP -3 will provide benefits to landowners as compared with
standard wetland permitting, while providing for greater water resource
protection.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 2
October 8, 2008
•
•
•
•
•
1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Rule is to implement the Lino Lakes Resource
Management Plan (June, 2008) ( "RMP ") adopted by the Rice Creek Watershed
District ( "District ") Board of Managers on October 8, 2008. The RMP constitutes
a Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan under Minnesota Statutes
§103G.2243 and was approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil
Resources (BWSR) on September 24, 2008. It examines natural resources on a
watershed basis to create a planning and regulatory framework that will protect
and enhance those resources in the context of development pressures within
the watershed and the continuing maintenance of capacity within the public
drainage systems in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103E. This
Rule regulates activity both in wetland and on upland within the RMP area. It
comprehensively addresses wetland and other water resource protection
concerns and therefore replaces permit review under individual District Rules C
(Stormwater Management) and F (Wetland Alteration). The Rule applies only
within the geographic area shown as "RMP Area" on Figure 1: RMP Rule Boundary
and Landscape Scale Wetland Preservation Corridor.
2. DEFINITIONS
The definitions of District Rule A apply to this Rule except for any term defined
below.
(a) Better Site Design - an approach to residential and commercial
projects that seeks to accomplish three goals of reducing the amount of
impervious cover, increasing natural lands set aside for conservation, and
using pervious areas for more effective stormwater treatment, through
the review of every aspect of site plans and use of creative grading and
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 3
October 8, 2008
drainage techniques to reduce stormwater runoff and encourage more
infiltration.
(b) Biofiltration- A stormwater quality and quantity BMP that utilizes
vegetation and soil to filter and absorb pollutants including nutrients,
hydrocarbons and metals and remove water volume through
evapotranspiration.
(c) Filtration -A stormwater quality BMP that uses either natural media
such as soil or vegetation or manufactured media to trap pollutants such
as nutrients and particles in surface water.
(d) Marginally Degraded Wetland -State of degradation for existing
wetland reflecting score of low /high or high /low for functional indicators
out /et condition /vegetative quality, respectively, using MnRAM 3.0 or
other state - approved wetland functional methodology.
(e) Moderately Degraded Wetland -State of degradation for existing
wetland reflecting score of low /medium or medium /medium for
functional indicators outlet condition /vegetative quality, respectively,
using MnRAM 3.0 or other state - approved wetland functional
methodology.
(f) Natural Heritage Ranking - Plant community ranking methodology as
described by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural
Heritage Program, Minnesota's Native Vegetation version 1.5 or as
amended.
(g) Non - Degraded Wetland -State of degradation for existing wetland
reflecting score of medium /high, high /medium or high /high for
functional indicators outlet condition /vegetative quality, respectively,
using MnRAM 3.0 or other state - approved wetland functional
methodology.
(h) Partially Drained Wetland- A wetland that has had its original, natural
hydrology altered to a drier hydrologic regime.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 4
October 8, 2008
•
•
•
• (i) Plant Community Ranking- Vegetative plant community ranking as
•
•
defined in MnRAM 3.0 for each Plant Community Type.
(j) Plant Community Type- The plant community types as defined by
using the "Wetland Plant Community Types ", S. Eggers and D. Reed.
(k) Primary Replacement Credit - A form of wetland replacement credit
that can be used for any part of the wetland replacement obligation as in
Table 2 as a Primary Replacement Method.
(l) RMP - Resource Management Plan, as described in the Preamble to this
Rule.
(m) Resource Management Unit -. Hydrologically defined areas identified
in the Resource Management Plan that include specific required
stormwater management strategies, resource protection
recommendations and implementation projects.
(n) Secondary Replacement Credit -A form of wetland replacement credit
that can only be used for a part of the wetland replacement required
above a 1:1 ratio. Table 2 identifies this type of wetland replacement as
a Secondary Replacement Method.
(o) Severely Degraded Wetland -State of degradation for existing wetland
reflecting score of low /low or medium /low for functional indicators out /et
condition /vegetative quality, respectively, using MnRAM 3.0 or other
state - approved wetland functional model.
(p) Technical Evaluation Panel -The body described in Minnesota Rules
8420.0240, as amended and includes a representative from the City of
Lino Lakes.
(q) Upland Buffer -An upland area of native vegetation that is contiguous
with the final WPC or an existing restored or created wetland with an
average width of 50 feet and minimum width of 25 feet.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 5
October 8, 2008
(r) Upland Habitat Area - a nonwetland area that is contiguous with an
existing, restored, or created wetland and scores "C" or better using the
Natural Heritage Ranking methodology.
(s) Water Quantity Best Management Practice - the use of on -site runoff
management practices such as biofiltration, infiltration,
buffers /conservation areas, impervious disconnection, greenway
connections in a WPC. to satisfy stormwater management or wetland
replacement requirements.
(t) Wetland Impact -A Toss in the quantity, quality, or biological diversity
of a wetland caused by (a) draining, partially draining, filling, excavating,
or diverting water from a wetland; or (b) hydrologic regime change of a
wetland, by inundation or other means, without maintaining or improving
wetland functions.
(u) Wetland Preservation Corridor (WPC)- Incorporation of high - priority
wetland resources identified at a landscape scale in the RMP and
delineated at the time of individual project permitting as:
(i) Wetland community that is physically contiguous with (not
separated by upland from) the landscape scale WPC alignment
shown in Figure 1 and /or that ranks high for vegetative integrity
using MnRAM 3.0 or most recent state approved methodology or
(ii) Wetland community meeting the vegetative integrity criterion of
paragraph (i) and any part of which is within 50 feet of the
community identified under paragraph (i);
with inclusions of habitat and stormwater management features
consistent with the strategies identified for each Resource Management
Unit.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 6
October 8, 2008
•
•
•
•
•
3. APPLICABILITY.
(a) A Rule RMP -3 permit is required to:
(i) Impact a wetland within the RMP area;
(ii) Create more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface
within the RMP area; or
(iii) Use motorized equipment to alter land contours within the
RMP area so as to increase or decrease the rate or volume of
surface runoff into a wetland within the RMP area.
(b) For activity subject to this Rule, a separate permit under District Rule B
(Procedural Requirements), C (Stormwater Management or F (Wetland
Alteration) is not required. Other District Rules including Rule I (Drainage
Systems) and the permit requirements of other units of government,
including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, continue to apply.
(c) Sections 5 and 6 below are not applicable, and submittal requirements
will be modified accordingly, in an instance where the District is not the
local government unit under Minnesota Statutes §103G.005, subdivision
10e, responsible for implementing the Wetland Conservation Act.
(d) Public linear roadway projects not part of an industrial, commercial,
institutional or residential development are partly excepted from this Rule
as follows:
(i) Wetland impacts are subject to District Rule F rather than
sections 4 through 7 of this Rule for the following classifications
per MnDOT State Aid Manual Chapter Zero - General Information:
Rural Principal Arterials, Rural Minor Arterials, Rural Major
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 7
October 8, 2008
Collectors, Urban Principal Arterials, Urban Minor Arterials, Rural
Minor Collectors and Urban Collectors.
(ii) Stormwater quality and infiltration requirements of Rule C,
subsection 5(f), apply in place of subsections 8(b) and (c) of this
Rule.
4. APPLICATION REVIEW.
(a) Pre - application Review: In cases where wetland fill, excavation or
draining, wholly or partly, is contemplated, the applicant is encouraged to
submit a preliminary concept plan for review with District staff, Technical
Evaluation Panel (TEP) and City of Lino Lakes before submitting a formal
application. The following information will be examined during pre -
application review:
(i) Sequencing (in accordance with State Wetland Conservation Act
and Federal Clean Water Act requirements, reducing the size,
scope or density of the proposed action, and changing the type of
project action to avoid and minimize wetland impacts);
(ii) Wetland Assessment;
(iii) Applying Better Site Design principles as defined in Section 2a;
(iv) Integrating into the wetland buffer zone compatible uses such
as pervious trails, volume credit activities, and Best Management
Practices (BMPs) described in Section 8 of this Rule.
(v) Exploring development code flexibility, including conditional
use permits, planned unit development, variances and code
revisions; and
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 8
October 8, 2008
•
•
•
•
•
(vi) Prior to convening a pre - application meeting the applicant
must review specific strategies such as wetland stormwater
susceptibility and corridor connections identified in the RMP for
each affected RMU
(vii) Coordinate WPC establishment with existing adjacent WPC's
At the pre - application meeting, the applicant will provide documentation
sufficient to assess project alternatives at a concept level and such other
information as the District specifically requests.
(b) On receipt of a complete application as described in Section 10, the
District will review and act on the application in accordance with its
procedural rules and in accordance with Wetland Conservation Act
procedures.
(c) Replacement plan, exemption, no -loss and boundary decisions under
this Rule will be subject to appeal in accordance with the terms and
procedures of the Wetland Conservation Act. Other elements of a District
permit decision will be subject to appeal in accordance with the terms
and procedures of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D. The TEP shall be
consulted with for decisions related to replacement plans, exemptions,
no -loss, wetland boundaries and determination of the WPC. Permit
decisions will be made by the Board except as delegated to the
Administrator by written resolution.
(d) On request, District staff will provide to an applicant a draft Engineer's
Report regarding status of application completeness and review.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 9
October 8, 2008
5. WETLAND REPLACEMENT. Any activity subject to this Rule that includes
wetland impact is subject to this Section.
(a) The RMP is incorporated into this Rule. The specific terms of this Rule
will govern, but if a term of this Rule is susceptible to more than one
interpretation, the interpretation that best carries out the intent and
purposes of the RMP will be chosen.
(b) The provisions of the Wetland Conservation Act, Minnesota Statutes
§ §103G.221 through 103G.2372, and its implementing rules, Minnesota
Rules 8420.0100 et seq., as amended, apply under this Rule except
where this Rule provides otherwise. The exceptions contained in
Minnesota Rules 8420.0122 are not applicable under this Rule, except as
follows:
(i) The agricultural, wetland restoration, utilities, de minimis and
wildlife habitat exemptions, Minnesota Rules 8420.0122, subparts
1, 4, 6, 9 and 10, are applicable.
(ii) The drainage exemption, Minnesota Rules 8420.0122, subpart
2, is applicable on a determination by the District that the
applicant has demonstrated, through adequate hydrologic
modeling, that the drainage activity will not change the hydrologic
regime of an RMP- mapped high quality wetland plant community
type (see Figure 5 of the RMP document) within the boundary of a
Wetland Preservation Corridor. Wetland and plant community
boundaries will be field- verified.
(iii) The incidental wetland exemption, Minnesota Rules
8420.01 12, subpart 5, is applicable if the applicant can show that
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 10
October 8, 2008
•
•
•
•
the existing wetland acres were not wetland acres before the
activity that created them or the activity was not intended to create
wetland.
(c) Replacement plans will be evaluated and implemented in accordance
with Minnesota Rules 8420.0230 and 8420.0500 through 8420.0630,
except that the provisions of this Rule will apply in place of Minnesota
Rules 8420.0540, 8420.0541, 8420.0543, 8420.0544, 8420.0546 and
8420.0549, as amended. The District will use the methodology of
Minnesota Rules 8420.0549, subpart 5, to determine wetland
replacement requirements for partially drained wetlands.
(d) An application will identify WPC boundaries under normal conditions
on any properties on which permit activity will occur. The applicant's
initial WPC delineation will adjust the landscape -scale WPC boundary
shown on Figure 1 by applying the criteria of paragraph 2(u) at a site
level. A map showing final WPC boundaries must be prepared and filed
with the District. The map will reflect any change to the boundaries as a
result of the permitted activity.
(e) A replacement plan must provide at least one replacement credit for
each wetland impact acre, as shown in Table 1. A minimum of 1:1, must
be identified as Primary Replacement Methods in Table 2. The remainder
may be Secondary Replacement Methods identified in Table 2.
(f) Acres of impact and replacement credits are determined by applying
the following two steps in order:
(i) Multiplying actual wetland acres affected by impacts by the
ratios stated in Table 1; and
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3
October 8, 2008
11
(ii) Multiplying replacement wetland acres by the percentages
stated in Table 2. All replacement areas used to calculate wetland
replacement credit that are not within the final WPC will receive
credit based on area of replacement activity at the percentage
shown in column 2 of Table 2, unless replacement area is in the
proposed project boundaries as impact area and there is no initial
WPC within the project boundaries, in which case the replacement
area will receive credit based on area of replacement activity as
shown in column 1 of Table 2.
(g) The replacement plan must demonstrate that non - exempt impacts
will result in no net Toss of wetland hydrologic regime, water quality, or
wildlife habitat function through a wetland assessment methodology
approved by BWSR pursuant to the Wetland Conservation Act, Minnesota
Statutes 5103G.221 et seq.
(h) The location and type of wetland replacement will conform as closely
as possible to the following standards:
(i) No wetland plant community of high or exceptional wildlife
habitat function and vegetative integrity, as identified in the
required wetland assessment, may be disturbed.
(ii) No replacement credit will be given for excavation in an upland
natural community with Natural Heritage Program rank B or higher.
(iii)Credit percentages found under Column 1 of Table 2 may be
available for primary replacement restoration but not creation
outside the landscape -scale WPC.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 12
October 8, 2008
•
•
Table 1. Wetland Impact Ratios
Wetland Plant Community Type
Location
Outside WPC
Within WPC
Degraded* shallow, deep marshes or open water
1:1
2:1
Non - Degraded shallow, deep marshes or open water
1.25:1
2.25:1
Degraded* sedge meadow, wet meadow, or wet to
mesic prairie
1:1
2:1
Non - Degraded sedge meadow, wet meadow, or wet
to mesic prairie
1.5:1
2.5:1
Degraded* shrub carr or alder thicket
1:1
2:1
Non - Degraded shrub carr or alder thicket
1.5:1
2.5:1
Degraded* hardwood, coniferous swamp, floodplain
forest, or bog
1.25:1
2.25:1
Non - Degraded hardwood, coniferous swamp,
floodplain forest, or bog
2:1
3:1
Degraded* seasonally flooded basin
1:1
2:1
Non - Degraded seasonally flooded basin
1.25:1
2.25:1
* The term degraded includes marginally, moderately & severely degraded per the definitions.
Table 2. Replacement Credit Ratios
1. Primary Replacement Credits
For all replacement meeting the minimum 1.1, Percentages are applied to area of
proposed replacement activity.
Column 1
In WPC
Column,
Outside
WPC
Hydrologic and vegetative restoration of partially drained marginally degraded
25%
12.5%
wetlands
Hydrologic and vegetative restoration of partially drained moderately degraded
50%
25%
wetlands
Hydrologic and vegetative restoration of partially drained severely degraded wetlands
75%
37%
Establishment (creation) m nonnative upland (refer to 5 (h ii))
75%
37%
Restoration of effectively drained, former wetland
100%
50%
2. Secondary Replacement Credits
For all replacement obligations exceeding 1:1
Upland buffer contiguous with wetland
25%
12.5%
Upland habitat area contiguous with final WPC wetland (2 ac. minimum)
100%
n/a
Vegetation restoration of existing low scoring wetland for "Vegetative Integrity" using
MnRAM in the final WPC
100%
n/a
Exceptional Natural Resource Values Wetlands (WCA guidance)
50%
25%
(i) A road, utility including manholes and lift stations, or other structure,
other than a structure related to a passive recreational or educational
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 13
October 8, 2008
use, may be placed within the final WPC only on compelling need and
pursuant to the District's variance procedures.
(j) Unless a different standard is stated in the approved replacement or
banking plan, the performance standard for upland and wetland restored
or created to generate credit is the establishment, by the end of the WCA
monitoring period, of a medium or high plant community ranking
pursuant to the approved replacement plan and establishment of at least
50% of the total number of native species of an approved BWSR wetland
mix and 80% areal coverage proposed in the planting or seeding plan.
(k) A variance to a requirement of section 5 otherwise meeting the criteria
of District Rule L may be granted if the Technical Evaluation Panel
concurs that the wetland protection afforded will not be Tess than that
resulting from application of the standard criteria of the Wetland
Conservation Act.
6. WETLAND BANKING.
(a) Replacement requirements under Section 5 of this Rule may be
satisfied in whole or part by application of replacement credits generated
off -site within the RMP -3 area, but not by credits generated outside of
the RMP area.
(b) The deposit of replacement credits created within the RMP -3 area for
banking purposes and credit transactions for replacement will occur in
accordance with Minnesota Rules 8420.0740 and 8420.0760 as
amended. Credits generated within the RMP area may be used for
replacement either within or outside of the RMP area.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 14
October 8, 2008
•
•
•
•
•
•
(i) The District will calculate the amount of credit in accordance
with the standard terms of WCA. This measure of credit will
appear in the BWSR wetland banking account.
(ii) If a banking plan requests that credits generated qualify for
replacement within the RMP -3 area, the District will also calculate
the amount of credit in accordance with Section 5 of this rule. The
District will record this measure of credit internally. The District
will adjust this internal account if the BWSR account later is debited
for replacement outside of the RMP -3 area. When credits are used
for replacement within the RMP -3 area, the District will convert
credits used into standard WCA credits so that the BWSR account is
accurately debited.
(iii) A banking plan may request that credits be calculated both
ways so that credits are available for use both within and outside
of the RMP area.
(iv) The amount of Secondary Replacement Credit accepted for
deposit or internal District crediting will not exceed the amount of
Primary Replacement Credit accepted in the transaction.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 15
October 8, 2008
7. VEGETATED WETLAND BUFFER AND UPLAND HABITAT AREA.
(a) As a condition of permit issuance under this Rule, a property owner
must record a declaration in a form approved by the District establishing
vegetated buffer area adjacent to the delineated edge of wetland within
the final Wetland Preservation Corridor and other wetland buffer and
upland habitat approved as part of a permit under this Rule. The
declaration must state that on further subdivision of the property, each
subdivided lot of record shall meet the monumentation requirement of
paragraph 7(b). On public land or right -of -way, in place of a recorded
declaration, the public owner may execute a written maintenance
agreement with the District. The agreement will state that if the land
containing the buffer or upland habitat area is conveyed to a private
party, the seller must record a declaration for maintenance in a form
approved by the District.
(b) Buffer or upland habitat area is to be indicated by permanent,
freestanding markers at the buffer or habitat area upland edge, with a
design and text approved by District staff in writing. A marker shall be
placed at each lot line, with additional markers at an interval of no more
than 200 feet. If a District permit is sought for a subdivision, the
monumentation requirement will apply to each lot of record to be
created. On public land or right -of -way, the monumentation requirement
may be satisfied by the use of markers flush to the ground, breakaway
markers of durable material, or a vegetation maintenance plan approved
by District staff in writing.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 16
October 8, 2008
•
•
•
• (c) All buffer required under section 7 must average at least 50 feet in
width, measure at least 25 feet at all points, and meet the average width
at all points of concentrated inflow. Buffer receiving secondary
replacement credit as upland habitat area must be at least two acres in
size.
(d) The buffer or upland habitat area will consist of vegetated land,
primarily plant species native to this region, that is not cultivated;
cropped; pastured; mowed; fertilized; used as a site for depositing snow
removed from roads, driveways or parking Tots; subject to the placement
of mulch or yard waste; or otherwise disturbed, except for periodic
cutting or burning that promotes the health of the buffer or upland
habitat area, actions to address disease or invasive species, or other
actions to maintain or improve buffer or habitat area quality, each as
approved in writing by District staff. The application must include a
vegetation management plan for District approval. For public road
authorities and stormwater system maintenance, the terms of this
subsection will be modified as necessary to accommodate safety and
maintenance feasibility needs.
(e) Buffer may be disturbed to alter land contours or improve buffer
function if the following criteria are met:
(i) An erosion control plan is submitted under which: alterations
are designed and conducted to expose the smallest amount of
disturbed ground for the shortest time possible; fill or excavated
material is not placed to create an unstable slope; mulches or
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 17
October 8, 2008
similar materials are used for temporary soil coverage; and
permanent native vegetation is established as soon as possible.
(ii) Wooded buffer and native riparian canopy trees are left intact;
(iii) When disturbance is completed, sheet flow characteristics
within the buffer are improved; average slope is no steeper than
preexisting average slope or 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), whichever is
less steep, preexisting slopes steeper than 5:1 containing dense
native vegetation will not require regrading; the top 18 inches of
the soil profile is not compacted, has a permeability at least equal
to the permeability of the preexisting soil in an uncompacted state
and has organic matter content of between five and 15 percent;
and habitat diversity and riparian shading are maintained or
improved.
(iv) A re- vegetation plan is submitted specifying removal of
invasive species and establishment of native vegetation suited to
the location.
(v) A recorded declaration or, for a public entity, maintenance
agreement is submitted that states that for three years after the
site is stabilized, the property owner will correct erosion, maintain
and replace vegetation, and remove invasive species to establish
permanent vegetation according to the re- vegetation plan.
(vi) Disturbance is not likely to result in erosion, slope failure or a
failure to establish vegetation due to existing or proposed slope,
soil type, root structure or proposed construction methods.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3
October 8, 2008
18
•
•
•
•
(f) No above- or below- ground structure or impervious surface may be
placed within the buffer or upland habitat area permanently or
temporarily, except as follows:
(i) A structure may extend or be suspended above the buffer or
habitat area if the impact of any supports within the buffer or
habitat area is negligible, the design allows sufficient Tight to
maintain the species shaded by the structure, and, for buffer, the
structure does not otherwise interfere with the protection afforded
by the buffer.
(ii) A public utility, or a structure associated with a public utility,
may be located within a buffer or upland habitat area on a
demonstration that there is no reasonable alternative that avoids
or reduces the proposed buffer intrusion. The utility or structure
shall minimize the area of permanent vegetative disturbance.
(iii) Stormwater features that are vegetated consistent with 7(d)
may be located within buffer on site - specific approval.
(iv) Buffer or habitat area may enclose a linear surface no more
than 10 feet in width and, for buffer, no less than 25 feet from the
delineated wetland edge for non - motorized travel if wetland
habitat will not be measurably reduced. Trail edge mowing is not
permitted.
(g) Material may not be excavated from or placed in a buffer or upland
habitat area, except for temporary placement of fill or excavated material
pursuant to duly - permitted work in the associated wetland, or pursuant
to paragraph 7(e) of this Rule.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 19
October 8, 2008
•
8. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. The following requirements apply to
subdivision, grading or the creation of impervious surface subject to this Rule.
(a) The requirements of District Rule C apply except for paragraphs 2(a)
through 2(c) and 5(b) through 5(f) of that Rule.
(b) Better Site Design principles will be incorporated and water quantity
BMPs (as defined in this Rule) must be incorporated to the following
standards:
(i) BMP volume must retain the one -year event by providing at
least the volume equal to the runoff from a 2.3 -inch, 24 -hour
storm over the tributary area within the site under proposed
conditions.
(1) Infiltration BMPs (see District BMP standard plates and
design criteria) are to be incorporated in areas with A & B
hydrologic soil groups. Stormwater from impervious
surfaces other than rooftops must be pretreated before
discharge to infiltration BMPs, to remove sediment and
floatables, or other materials that would restrict the BMP's
capacity or contaminate ground water.
(2) In the following areas, the volume required by paragraph
8(b)(i) is to be provided by bio- filtration features or two -cell
wetland treatment systems (see District standard plates and
design criteria):
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 20
October 8, 2008
• (a) Areas of C or D hydrologic soil groups that cannot
be routed by a gravity system to onsite A or B
hydrologic soil groups;
(b) Areas with a groundwater table within three (3)
feet of surface, or otherwise at an elevation that
poses a threat of groundwater contamination or
renders the infiltration BMP ineffective;
(c) Areas where soil contamination is present or land
use history indicates a likely threat of soil
contamination.
(c) In addition to the BMPs required under 8(b), volume control measures
are required reducing runoff by at least the volume from 0.5- inches of
rainfall over impervious surfaces on the site (0.5 -inch multiplied by
impervious area). Volume reduction required under this paragraph may
be achieved only by the following measures: Reestablishment of
Effectively Drained Wetlands and Floodplain Meadows Upland
Restoration /Conservation, Restoration of Degraded Wetlands, Impervious
Disconnection, Soil Amendments /Tilling.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 21
October 8, 2008
•
Volume Reduction Measures
Volume Calculation
*Reestablishment of Effectively
Drained Wetlands and Floodplain
Meadows
1.0" x surface area (ac)for floodplain
meadows and seasonally flooded, scrub
shrub, and forested wetlands
0.5" x surface area (ac)for fully vegetated
Type 2 and 3 wetlands
*Upland
Restoration /Conservation
0.85" x surface area (ac)
*Restoration of Degraded
Wetlands
0.25" x surface area (ac)
Impervious Disconnection
Up to 0.5" x disconnected impervious
area (ac)
Soil Amendments /Tilling
0.3" x surface area amended (ac)
*BMPs eligible for Volume Bank Credits under Section 9.
(d) The proposed activity may not reduce hydraulic efficiency of the
drainage -ways within the RMP at any point upgradient of the applicant's
parcel boundary.
(e) The property owner must record a declaration, or a public owner
execute a maintenance agreement, that prohibits plowed snow storage in
a location from which runoff will be conveyed without adequate
pretreatment (minimum of 25' overland drainage on grassland or other
rough vegetated surface to trap flow) or sheet flow directly into a wetland
within the RMP area. This requirement does not apply to snow removed
from public roadways.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 22
October 8, 2008
•
•
(f) Soil amendment, excavation or filling pursuant to development within
the RMP area may not impede groundwater flow so as to create a
substantial risk of Toss of function to any wetland.
9. VOLUME CREDITS AND BANKING. An applicant may receive credit from the
District for stormwater volume reduction measures that provide more
attenuation than required under this Rule. The volume reduction measures
must be included in the project design and the application must include a
statement of intent to generate excess credits. Measures receiving credit will be
protected in perpetuity by recorded covenants on a form approved by the
District. Credits may be used to meet the requirements of paragraphs 8(a) and
(b) of this Rule. The District will maintain credit and credit transaction records,
but credit transactions will be arranged by the interested parties. For District
purposes, a volume credit is the property of the owner of the land on which the
credit was created and may be conveyed only to meet a present obligation under
this Rule. The following will be used to determine credits for volume reduction
measures:
(a) Banked volume credits may be applied to meet volume control
requirements elsewhere within the RMP -3 area. Volume credits created
in excess of the requirement of paragraph 8(c) are bankable only for
Reestablishment of Effectively Drained Wetlands and Floodplain Meadows,
Upland Restoration /Conservation, and Restoration of Degraded Wetlands
as listed under paragraph 8(c). The District will administer the
accumulation and sale of credits, but the price for the credits will be
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 23
October 8, 2008
established by negotiation between the interested parties. The District
will require proof of purchase and will track debits and credits.
(b) Conditions for Volume Credits
The following restoration activities qualify for volume credits, pursuant to
a design approved by the District:
(i) Reestablishment of Effectively Drained Wetlands - Restoring
hydrology and native vegetation to an effectively drained wetland.
(a) The wetland must be in hydric soils.
(b) The wetland area receiving credit must be fully vegetated.
Credit will be given for the emergent vegetated part of a
restored wetland based on the approved restoration plan
design.
(c) Reestablished wetland area must be protected in perpetuity
by means of recorded covenants.
(d) Soil excavation /alteration activity that results in a final
surface elevation at or below the groundwater table is not
eligible for credit.
(e) Wetland treatment systems required to meet paragraph
8(b)(i) do not qualify for this credit.
(f) Conservation easement is required over reestablished
wetland area.
(ii) Upland Restoration /Conservation - Conservation of high quality
upland areas with a Natural Heritage ranking of "C" or better or
restoration of Native Prairie, Woodlands or Forests.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 24
October 8, 2008
•
•
•
•
•
•
(a) Volume credit will be given only for area protected in
perpetuity by recorded covenants in favor of the District.
(b) Volume credit will be given only for area contiguous with a
Wetland Preservation Corridor OR area of at least 0.5 acres not
contiguous with the Wetland Preservation Corridor.
(c) Volume credit will be given only for buffer area in excess of
the minimum requirements of paragraph 7(c).
(iii) Restoration of Degraded Wetland - Restoring hydrology and
native vegetative cover to a partially drained wetland.
(a) No excavation is permitted; limited scraping is allowed.
(b) No credit will be given for open water wetland.
(c) Wetland treatment systems required to meet paragraph
8(b)(i) do not qualify for this credit.
(iv) Impervious Disconnection - Spreading of runoff from small
parking Tots, courtyards, driveways, sidewalks and other
impervious surfaces into adjacent pervious areas where it is
filtered or infiltrated to promote volume reduction.
(a)The contributing flow path from impervious cover must not
exceed 75 feet.
(b) In all cases, the disconnection length must exceed the
contributing flow path.
(c) Pervious area used for disconnection must have a slope no
greater than five percent.
(d) The total surface impervious area contributing to a single
discharge point shall not exceed 1,000 ft2 and shall drain
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 25
October 8, 2008
continuously through a pervious filter strip until it reaches the
property line or drainage swale.
(e) Soil tilling to restore infiltration potential is required to
restore porosity in graded /disturbed areas that will contribute
to runoff connection length.
(f) Impervious disconnection and credit values must comply
with District standard plates and design criteria.
(v) Soil Compaction Mitigation - Upland areas protected from
grading during construction, tilling of permeable soils compacted
during construction, or amending and tilling of low- permeability
soils compacted during construction.
(a) This credit may be combined with the impervious
disconnection credit.
(b) Soil Compaction Mitigation must comply with District
standard plates and design criteria.
(c) The District must be contacted 48 -hours prior to soil
compaction mitigation activities for verification of compliance.
10. SUBMITTALS.
(a) Except as provided below, an application for a permit review under
this Rule will consist of application materials, fees and sureties as
required by District Rules B (Procedural Requirements), C (Stormwater
Management), Rule D (Erosion and Sediment Control) and F (Wetland
Alteration), in addition to the submittals required under any other District
Rule to which the proposal is subject.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 26
October 8, 2008
•
•
•
•
(b) A proposal that does not involve subdivision, grading or development
of upland within the RMP area need not submit application materials
required by District Rule C (Stormwater Management).
(c) A proposal that does not involve fill, excavation or the partial or
complete draining of a wetland within the RMP area need not submit
application materials required by District Rule F (Wetland Alteration).
"Draining" includes altering surface or subsurface flows in a way that
materially reduces wetland hydrology.
(d) Unless exempted under paragraph 10(c) of this Rule, the application
must include:
(i) A delineation report for each wetland on the property using
methodology currently approved by District, state and federal
authorities;
(ii) Wetland function and values assessments for normal and
proposed conditions, using MnRAM or most recent state - approved
wetland functional assessment mothodology; and
(iii) All sequencing and replacement plan application components
as listed in Minnesota Rules 8420.0520 and 8420.0530 as
amended.
(e) On District request, the applicant will conduct an assessment of
protected plant or animal species within the project area.
(f) The application will include an on -site location of all public and private
ditches.
(g) The applicant will provide such other submittals as are reasonably
requested by the District.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 27
October 8, 2008
11. EASEMENT. As a condition of permit issuance, the property owner must
convey to the District and record, in a form acceptable to the District, a
perpetual, assignable easement granting the District the authority to monitor,
modify and maintain hydrologic and vegetative conditions within WPC wetland
and upland buffer or habitat area adjacent to WPC wetland, including the
authority to install and maintain structures within those areas and reasonable
access to those areas to perform authorized activity. The WPC shall be
identified and delineated as part of the recorded easement.
12. PARTIAL ABANDONMENT. As a condition of permit issuance, the District
may require a property owner to petition the District for partial abandonment of
a public drainage system pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §103E.805, as
amended. A partial abandonment under this Section may not diminish a
benefited property owner's right to drainage without the owner's agreement.
•
•
13. SURETIES. Sureties required under Rule RMP -3 will be released as follows:
(a) Stormwater management: when water quantity BMP's have been
approved, disturbed areas have achieved final stabilization and temporary
erosion and sediment control features are removed, and the landowner
has submitted engineer or surveyor certification that the facilities
conform to approved plans.
(b) Vegetated buffer: after monumentation has been completed,
vegetation has been established, and one additional full growing season
has passed. •
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 28
October 8, 2008
•
•
•
(c) Wetland replacement: in accordance with Minnesota Rules 8420.0630.
(d) Reestablishment of Effectively Drained Wetlands and Floodplain
Meadows, Upland Restoration /Conservation, Restoration of Degraded
Wetlands used for Volume Credits must have vegetation established and
one additional growing season has passed.
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3 29
October 8, 2008
Figure 1. Lino Lakes Rule Boundary and Landscape Scale Wetland Preservation
Corridor.
Baldwin Peltier
vr. CDA CDA
=DIM .1•Willill41.141M.
x.{
lwsfi n %'
. MiddleRkeiCriek
't —
�% ? i --.-
dd +d
RAMSEY,.
SCALE N MILES
0 1
It it I
Legend
41 RMP Boundary
e3 Resource Management Unit
Nos CDA (Contributing Drainage Area)
Creeks and Ditches
Wetland Preservation Corridor
EOR, RCNC
Ain -sofa Orfabrvnt of
Ssapwaun
RCWD Proposed Rule RMP -3
October 8, 2008
30
•
• \-\ c,,Th 0
Memorandum
•
To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board
From: Marty Asleson
Date: 11/14/2008
Re: Goals 2008/2009
Below you will find the Environmental Board Goals for 2008. Some of the items
we have expanded on in 2008 and are on -going goals. Some of the goals have
become irrelevant in 2008 because of the economic /building collapse, like the
AUAR area monitoring. A few of the goals we just didn't seem to get anywhere
such as the wild life habitat idea. We did offer an additional recycling
opportunity this year to help increase our recycling tonnage. The Comp Plan,
Resources Management Plan and Lino Lakes RMP -3 Rule are nearing
completion. We should look to implement these plans in future goals.
Please think about the issues and things we have discussed in the past such as
the Community Garden Club idea. This could be a goal for 2009.
2008 Goals
• Promote environmental stewardship with the citizens of Lino Lakes by:
A. Communicating environmental initiatives in the city using various
means of communication, i.e., City WebPages, newsletter, homeowners
association meetings, the information kiosk, and press coverage. Pursue
providing articles and information to the Quad Press.
B. Promote individual Backyard Wildlife Habitat through the National
Wildlife Federation. Inventory current participants and work to expand
program.
• Participate in Blue Heron Days, providing educational material to the
public.
• Participate in Earth Day activities in the community, promoting
environmental awareness and collaboration with other environmental
focused organizations.
Ill• Monitor any activity in the AUAR as well as other proposed
development areas, focusing on the values Lino Lakes citizens have
•
•
•
November 14, 2008
expressed in the vision for our city and the unique ecological aspects of
our wetlands, lakes and streams and subsurface waters. Apply mitigation
plan as defined for that area.
• Perform an evaluation of past Environmental Board recommendations
for development projects. Review a sampling of a variety of projects by
site visits, discussion with city staff, and landowners, neighbors, on the
outcomes of the Boards recommendations. Submit a summary of
significant findings resulting from the review in writing to the Community
Development Director.
• Promote conservation development within the City incorporating the
Open Space/Trail Plan and Handbook for Environmental Planning and
Conservation Development.
• To meet or exceed our City recycling goal of 50 percent or greater of
our Municipal solid waste. Find innovative ways to promote and
encourage recycling as a city. Add recycling materials to kiosk.
• Continue to monitor the Heron rookery and water quality in the
northern one third of Peltier Lake and to support the protection of
resources in that area.
• Participate in comp plan and process.
• Review and comment on the RMP planning process for the City of Lino
Lakes, JD4 and TMDL study for the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes.
2
•
•
•
J.R.'S Appliance Disposal, Inc.
10619 Courthouse Blvd., Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077
Business (651) 454 -9215 - Toll Free (800) 358 -6563 - Fax (651) 454 -8345
Statistical Data Showing Appliances Recycled for:
Lino Lakes City Hall
10/04/08 to 10/04/08
Appliances # of Units Pounds Percentages
AC - Electric: 2
AC - Gas: 0
Dehumidifier: 2
Dishwasher: 3
Dryer: 3
Freezer: 6
Furnace: 0
Garbage Disposal: 0
Humidifier: 0
Microwave: 10
Miscellaneous: 0
Range: 1
Refrigerator - Electric: 7
Refrigerator - Gas: 0
Refrigerator - Gas Under 4': 0
Trash Compactor 0
Washer: 9
Water Heater: 2
260
0
80
255
390
1,410
0
0
0
600
0
175
1,645
0
0
0
1,800
260
4.44%
0.00%
4.44%
6.67%
6.67%
13.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
22.22%
0.00%
2.22%
15.56%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
20.00%
4.44%
TOTAL: 45 6,875 100%
Appliances Recycled
El AC 11 AC Gas ❑ Dehumidifier ® Dishwasher 11 Dryer
D Freezer • Furnace ❑ Garbage Disposal • Humidifier E Microwave
❑ Miscellaneous 0 Refrig - Elect III Refrig - Gas ■ Refrig - Gas under 4' I■ Stove
DTrash Compactor ® Washer ® Water Heater
10/7/2008 2:58:18 PM