1n. Authorize $500 surface water mgmt to urban wetland mgmt coalition I E ►,
r f
CITYOF
‘ C IIAN'IlASSEN
1 \
\ :e if f
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Action by City Vriirnstrator
.
MEMORANDUM _
P' -__
-
e: _.__ T a 9 4 ..
1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Dat, st.. ` " r" :,. 'a"
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director °'t'
1
DATE: December 8, 1992
1 SUBJ: Request to Provide Surface Water Utility Funding to the Urban Wetland
Management Coalition
1 As the Council is aware, I have been representing both the City and the Minnesota League of
Cities on the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BOWSR) Rules Committee which was charged
I with helping to draft the rules designed to implement the State's new "no- net - loss" wetland
protection program. I have tried to keep the Council, Planning Commission and SWMP Task
Force informed as to the progress or lack of progress in this area. Throughout, Chanhassen's
I position has been one of strong support for the no- net -loss goal and we are widely acknowledged
as having the most comprehensive and effective program in the State.
I Unfortunately, the law that was approved by the State is seriously flawed. It was the result of
two bills being rammed together at midnight, neither of which had significant input from local
government. It treats urban property owners unfairly, significantly complicates the permit review
I procedure costing a great deal of time and money, is technically complex and often just plain
wrong. One of my major concerns is that as currently drafted, the bill and enforcement rules
seriously undermine a community's ability to responsibly plan for its own future. Local decisions
1 on the value and function of wetlands and on the nature of a development design itself can be
taken out of the local arena with decisions being made by bureaucrats in St. Paul. We are then
obligated to carry out their decisions even if we disagree and may have exposure for financial
1 damages suffered by a property owner in the process.
Others and I have tried to have the rules rewritten but frankly the deck was stacked by the
I makeup of the committee and rule development process that favored the state agencies,
agricultural organizations, and environmental groups. All the while, local governments like ours
I are already enforcing a no- net -loss policy. We are already meeting the goal without all the
problems that will result when the law and rules are implemented. At the same time, I have
spoken before several groups to encourage them to organize effective input aimed at getting the
I rules and statute rewritten.
es
1 t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1 Don Ashworth
December 8, 1992
Page 2
One of the efforts we have been involved with is a unique public /private partnership calling itself
the Urban Wetland Management Coalition. There is a long and growing list of members
including the cities of Eagan, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Woodbury, Plymouth, and Coon Rapids.
In addition, there are at least three watershed districts, many developers including a number
active in our community, as well as individual businesses and groups. The group has been in
existence for only a few weeks and membership is growing rapidly. We are organizing to
present a united front for the upcoming hearings on the rules (to be held on December 17) and
' later to obtain changes to the statute. We have all agreed to ask our respective councils, boards,
etc. to support the group by supplying funds to pay for legal representation. Since there are so
many members joining the group, the financial burden on any one member is small.
1 I raised this issue at the recent SWMP meeting and was authorized to request up to $1,000 of
SWMP funds to support these efforts. At this time, I am recommending that we send $500 to
the group. Staff also expects to be active in representing the City and the Coalition at the state
hearing and in later legislative meetings so we are also participating with an "in- kind"
contribution of staff time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize $500 of funding to support the efforts of the
Urban Wetland Management Coalition. Funds are to be provided out of the SWMP program.
pc: Urban Wetland Management Coalition
Planning Commission
1 Surface Water Management Task Force
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
_ I itKIN _ LINDA H. FISHER
OF IAN Attorney at Law IIII
` LY & LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
LINDGREN 1500 Norwest Financial Center I
Aaomcys "t 1 Aw 7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
(612) 83S -3800 I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Attendees at November 19, 1992 Wetland Rulemaking Organizational Meeting and Other
Interested Parties 1
FROM: Linda Fisher - Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
DATE: November 24, 1992
RE: *Urban Wetland Management Coalition Mission Statement
and Wetland Rulemaking Update
As many of you know, public and private sector representatives met in our office on November 19,
1992 to discuss the formation of a wetland rulemaking coalition. There was considerable interest in
the concept.
A working group was formed to prepare a coalition mission statement and working principles, identify
and prioritize issues, establish a rulemaking strategy and critical path, and assign work tasks for a
December 17, 1992 public hearing.
The working group met on November 23. It formulated the enclosed mission statement and principles
for y our review.
The next meeting of the working group is scheduled for 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, December 3, 1992 at
Larkin, Hoffman offices, 1500 Norwest Financial Center, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Bloomington,
Minnesota. Anyone who is interested is encouraged to attend. On December 3, we plan to prioritize
identified rulemaking issues, establish broad themes, and work on the nuts and bolts of the rulemaking
effort, such as a critical path and alternatives to the proposed rules.
The working group believes that a broad -based mix of public and private members is essential to the 1
rulemaking effort. It distinguishes the group from other individual or single- purpose organizations
that may have participated in the past. Accordingly, please advise me of your interest and that of
other potential contributing members.
We will report to you after the December 3 working group meeting.
Thanks for your support!
•
---------- ---- -- 1
* The working group's first shot at the name of the public- private sector wetland rulemaking
coalition. We're open, however, to other suggestions.
E ' : _ � v , ' :'� ' /G M l 'iS /ZE :91 N1Yi ig NvA_ OH N }:t't' 7, y ►J��
URBAN WETLAND MANAGEMENT COALITION
MISSION STATEMENT AND WORKING PRINCIPLES
•
•
Mission Statement
1
It is the mission of the Urban Wetland Management Coalition to represent the interests of local
1 governmental units and urban property owners, developers and businesses in meaningfully,
reasonably, and economically pursuing no net loss of wetlands.
1
1 Working Principles
• Minimize duplicative wetland regulatory processes.
• Maximize the ability of local governmental units to carry out long -term land use and
water resource planning.
1 • Ensure that the regulatory burden and cost borne by permit applicants and local
governmental units bears some relation to the magnitude of anticipated impacts.
' • Ensure that wetland rules are consistent with the authority provided in the Wetland
Conservation Act.
• Ensure that the technical aspects of the wetland rules are based on sound scientific
' principles.
• Ensure that all regulated parties are treated equally and fairly under the rules.
1
1
1
1
1 t ' i , 91 '?S /H 91 4 1 1(znz) NZNIIE NRi OH NIKT1 YiOEL
11
II
1
NAME: David Jessup NUMBER: 731 - 5791 1
NAME: Barry Johnson _ NUMBER: 731 - 5791
NAME: Ron Peterson NUMBER: 921 - 3268 1
NAME: Mark Parranto NUMBER: 454 -8943
NAME: Jeff Oliver NUMBER: 469 -3815 1
NAME: Don Rye NUMBER: 924 - 2663 1
NAME: Rick Sathre NUMBER: 476 -0104
NAME: Terry M. Forbord NUMBER :. 473 -7401
I
NAME: Rick Brasch NUMBER: 681 - 4612
NAME: Charles Pfeffer NUMBER: 425 - 2324 1
NAME: JoAnn Olsen NUMBER: 937 - 5739 I
NAME: Ann Perry NUMBER: 939 -8244
NAME: Chuck Dillerud NUMBER: 550 -5060
1
NAME NUMBER:
NAME: NUMBER: 1
NAME: NUMBER:
I
NAME; NUMBER:
NAME: NUMBER:
1
NAME; NUMBER: _
NAME: NUMBER: 1
NAME: NUMBER:
NAME: — NUMBER: I
NAME: NUMBER:
II
II
,r,. '.. .':''ox /H:;: 91 Z6 'l i (ini) NJ IE NTAii0H N: }_VT 'AC E11
JAMES P LARKIN LAF K 1 N. HOF'FMAN. DALY Lac LINDGREN, LTD. PAULO PLUNKETT
RDOCR7 L. MOrrMAN ALAN L. KILDOW
JACK I. DAL ATTORNEY AT LAW KATHLEEN NEWMAN
D KEi.NLTM LINDGREN MICHAEL B LEBARON
GERALD H. PRICE/ELL LL °REBORN' E KORSTA0
I
ALLAN C. MULLIGAN °ART A. VAN CLEVE.
JAMES C. ERICKSON DANIEL L BOWLEb
EDWARD J °RISC OLL OO NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER ¶000 M VLAThOVICM
CCNL N. FULLER TIMOTHY J. MCIIANUS
JOHN 0 FULLMER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH TIMOTHY J KLANL
ROGCRT OQYLE DONNAL ROOACIK
' f RANK I HARVEY DLOOMINGT0 N, MINNESOTA 55 MICMACL W SCH LCT
CHARL MVDELL MICHAEL A ROBERTSON
QMRIjT RHER J C ETZEN TELEPHONE 1819) 833.3800 USA A GRAY
JOHN R 9[ATTI[ GARY A. RLNN LKC
LINDA h. ►1G4[R FAX 18121 886.3333 SHANNON K MCCAMBRIDGE
THOMAS P STOLTMAN CHRIStOPMER J MARRIGTHAL
MIChAEL e JACKMAN WILLIAM C GRIFFITH TI
JOHN DIEHL JOHN J 6TErrENNAG[N
JON 9 9WIERLLw9Kl DANIEL W VO66
THOMAS J. rLYNN MARK A. RuRIK
JAMES P OUINN JOHN R. HILL
TODD I. IRC CMAN JAMES R MARTIN
PCT[R K. •[CK THOMAS J SCYMOUR
JEROME N KAHN 'S[ MICHAEL J. SMITH
SHERRILL R OMAN PRCOCRICK K MAUSCR III
GERALD L $ECK MARY C VOS
JOHN B LUNDOUIST LARRY 0 MARTIN
DAYLE NOLAN CILIBERTO*
THOMAS 9 H UMPHPET. JR
MICHAEL T MChIM
J OHN A COTTER, Or COUNSCL
B EATRICE A ROTHWEILER WENDELL R ANDERSON
JOSEPH GITIT.
RICHARD A NORODY[
I *ALSO ADMITTED IN
MULTIPLE MESSAGE COVER SHEET WI°C °NOIN
I DATE: November 24, 1992 PAGES:44(INCLUDING COVER SHEET)
FROM: LINDA FISHER FILE NO: 19,596 -00
•
TO THE FOLLOWING:
NAME: Michael Black NUMBER: 476 -8532
NAME: Kel J. B r
opav NUMBER: 476 -8532
I NAME: Pat Groeper NUMBER: 932 -4528
NAME: Joel G. Schilling NUMBER: 490 -2150
I NAME: Cliff Aichinger NUMBER: 779 -0832
NAME: _ Jay Liberacki NUMBER 739 -9124 .
I NAME: Deb Garross NUMBER: 447 -4245
I NAME: - Byron Wallace NUMBER: 861 -9749 •
NAME: Brian Wellman NTJBER: 942 -8075
I NAME: Jean Johnson NUMBER: 937 -7411
NAME: Carl Jullie NUMBER: 937 -7411
II NAME: John Heald NUMBER: 890 -3815
II NAME: Pamela Backer NUMBER: 646 -2860
NAME: Lon Aune NUMBER: 431 -8884
1 NAME: Clarkson Lindley NUMBER: 475 -3686
1
I 'd :� : . 1 ' ox /0 G : � 1 ' IS/1E : 9 i G 6 IVY , 11(3n1) NIrE NV1 OH N ? Yi4
E
LARKIN LINDA H. FISHER
HOFFMAN Attorney at Law
DALY & LARIINN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
LINDGREN 1500 Norwest Financial Center
Attomeys at Law 7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
(612) 835-3800
1
BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT
RULEMAKING: SAMPLE OF ISSUES
1. Complexity of wetland regulatory process in Minnesota. Multiple agencies 1
reviewing single proposal. Different standards, different staffs, different
procedures.
• DNR
• Watershed District '
• Army Corps of Engineers
• EPA
• U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1
• MPCA
• Local Government
• Board of Water and Soil Resources
• Soil and Water Conservation District
2. Costly, time - consuming procedural hurdles 1
• Within ten days of receipt of replacement plan application, copy of the
application and invitation to submit comments mailed to any member of the 1
public who requests a copy, soil and water conservation district, watershed
district, county board, mayors of cities within the watershed, and
commissioners of agriculture and natural resources. LGU publishes notice of
application in general circulation newspaper. BWSR publishes notice in EQB I
Monitor.
• LGUs have up to 60 days to make a decision. Decision is not effective until 1
30 days after a copy of the decision has been mailed to the EQB Monitor and
to the same list specified for notice of publication.
• The applicant, any person who requests notice of the decision or 100 residents 1
of the county in which a majority of the wetland is located may appeal the
LGU decision to BWSR within 30 days. 1
• BWSR has 60 days to decide the appeal.
1
1
3. Differential treatment of agricultural land use and residential or commercial land
use.
• Exemptions
• Wetland replacement ratio
4. Make -up and scope of authority of technical evaluation panel.
5. Mandatory wetland functions and values matrix analysis. Micro-managed
approach. Questionable scientific basis.
• Generally favors in -kind, on -site replacement, regardless of facts and
circumstances.
1 • Favors creation of isolated wetlands that cannot be properly managed.
Disincentive to produce higher quality wetland replacement.
6. Most storm water ponds do not qualify as wetland replacement.
• Questionable scientific basis.
• Contrary to city and watershed district water quality plans and policies.
• Property owner "pays" twice - wetland replacement and on -site detention
pond. Disincentive to voluntary compliance with comprehensive drainage
plans.
' 7. Overly restrictive (100 square foot per_ year per landowner plus cumulativ
impact), no -loss wetland determination. No practical applicabi e
lity to "real life"
development.
1 • Compare to proposed regional conditions to Nationwide Permit 26 - 1/2 to 3
acres.
' 8. Minimal mitigation banking opportunities. Only restored (not created) wetlands
are eligible for deposit in wetland bank.
' 9. Onerous sequencing /alternatives analysis. Lacks Corps concept of "practicability"
in light of overall public purpose.
10. Does not include Corps public interest factors.
' 11. Does not include special area management lans or other opportunities for
comprehensive analysis of critical development areas. PP
1 12. All wetlands are created equal. No prioritizing or classification of wetland
resources
1 13. Indirect impacts of wetland regulation.
• Urban sprawl
• Increased housing costs
• More property tax and special assessment appeals
• Loss of property tax base
1 14. Constitutional issues
1