8D - Wetland Fill Permitting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SWCD and other agencies.As the LGU,the City has the capability to do so, and also the latitude �. to be more restrictive or require other permits if they deem it necessary. In being more restrictive, the City can require a permit, set wetlands setbacks, or prohibit wetland fill of this type altogether. The Planning Commission should discuss this issue and decide how to deal with wetlands filling that fall under this de minimis exemption.The following should be considered: i. If the Wetland Conservation Act, and the local permitting agencies, do not require a permit for projects that fall under these exemptions, should the wetland fill be: a. Allowed without a permit? b. Permitted? c. Prohibited altogether? 2. If the fill is to be permitted,what type of permit should be obtained? a. Over-the-counter? b. Conditional use? While the Staff has not encountered many requests to fill wetlands falling under this exemption, there are a number of undeveloped properties that contain wetlands wholly or partly on the property. It may be that we do not encounter many requests to fill wetlands on these properties, but given the extent of wetland coverage, it would not be not be out of the ordinary for such requests to be made. Should the Planning Commission choose to require a permit for this type of wetland activity,the City could pursue processing the permits in two ways. One would be to take on training a staff member in wetland delineation in order that the staff would be capable of making such determinations in the field for these permits. The Board of Water & Soils Resources offers wetland delineation training each year. The other option would be to complete an agreement with the SWCD staff to perform the onsite determinations. Because we do not anticipate a large number of requests for this type of activity,the Staff would recommend using the second option should the City choose to require permits. If the Planning Commission should decide to move forward with requiring a permitting process, the Staff would recommend that the sequencing standards that are required for non-exempt fill projects be followed,at a minimum.Those include the following: 1. Avoidance — Pre-application meeting would be highly recommended to work with the applicant to avoid wetland grading or filling altogether.Avoiding wetland impacts would be the first priority in any project. 2. Minimization —If it has been agreed that avoidance cannot be achieved,wetland impacts should be minimized. This can be achieved through the appropriate placement of the project, reducing the size of a project,or changing the design for the project. 3. Mitigation/Replacement — If avoidance cannot be achieved, replacement and mitigation efforts are required along with minimization. Replacement can be done through purchase in a wetlands bank, creating a new wetland elsewhere, or making payment to the local water protection program,for example. Keith Pohl at the Crow Wing SWCD suggested that the City may wish to complete a Comprehensive Wetland Plan. These plans allow flexibility in sequencing, flexibility in siting for replacement, and integration of wetland protection into local land use controls. It is our understanding that Sibley Township has started one of these plans prior to the merger with the City, but were unable to complete the project because of staffing cuts at BWSR. Because of L.. increased growth in the region, more lands that were previously considered undesirably(such as low-lying areas near wetlands) are being developed, with many of the low areas being filled. Should the City choose to require permitting for currently exempted wetland projects, Mr. Pohl City of Pequot Lakes Staff Report 10-2 July 20,2006