Laserfiche WebLink
• MEMORANDUM <br /> Memo To :Mayor and Council Members <br /> From :Ric Minetor, City Engineer/Director of Public Works <br /> Date :January 30 , 1991 <br /> Subject :Comments Regarding "NO NET LOSS" for Wetlands and <br /> Future Revisions to the Wetland Zoning Ordinance <br /> The state legislature is currently discussing numerous bills <br /> regarding wetland preservation and "NO NET LOSS" . At this time <br /> there does not appear to be concurrence on exactly what "NO NET <br /> LOSS" means and how to apply this concept to a political <br /> subdivision. Some people argue that the no net loss should be <br /> looked at state wide, others by watershed, and a few by wetland. <br /> The state wide concept argues that 'banking' of created wetlands <br /> in one area of the state can offset loss of wetlands in another <br /> area, Watershed based no net loss appears to offer mitigation <br /> within the same watershed for loss of wetlands, and no net loss <br /> by wetland indicates that there would be equivalent wetlands <br /> 111 before and after any project. The method of measuring wetlands <br /> for no net loss runs from measuring 'Habitat Values' to no change <br /> of boundaries to allowing 1.5 acres of mitigation for each acre <br /> lost. <br /> A number of state bills are based on Circular 39 for definition <br /> of types of wetlands . This is a U. S . Fish and Wildlife <br /> publication (circa 1956 ) which describes different types of <br /> wetlands and their characteristics. I believe the "Federal Manual <br /> for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" (dated <br /> January, 1989) is far better in determining boundaries. This is <br /> the publication currently accepted by the EPA and the Corps of <br /> Engineers. It appears that it may be some time before the state <br /> passes a wetland bill that includes a definition of "NO NET <br /> LOSS" . I recommend that the Council wait until this concept <br /> becomes law and the concept of "NO NET LOSS" is defined and <br /> accepted prior to including specific language in the wetland <br /> zoning ordinance. At this time the Council would need to review <br /> the status of the law, our ordinance, and public concern to <br /> determine the proper course of action to follow. <br /> 111 <br />