Loading...
04/16/1996 - 00003809CITY OF FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Sielaff called the April 16, 1996, meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Brad Sielaff, Dean Saba, Rich Svanda, Bruce Bondow, Jack Velin Members Absent: None Others Present: Lisa Campbell, Planning Associate Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant APPROVAL OF MARCH 19, 1996, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Svanda, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the March 19, 1996, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission minutes as written/amended. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF APRIL 16, 1996, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION AGENDA: MOTION by Mr. Velin, seconded by Mr. Svanda, to approve the agenda as written/amended. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. NEW BUSINESS: a. Michele McPherson Guest Speaker: Wetland Conservation Act Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant, City of Fridley, thanked Lisa Campbell for inviting her to the Commission's meeting to discuss the 1996 Wetland Conservation Act amendments and the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Planning Project. Ms. McPherson stated that in 1991, the state legislature passed the Wetland ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 16, 1996 PAGE 2 Conservation Act which promoted "no net loss" of wetlands and defined roughly twenty-five exemptions to the statute. In 1993, rules were written to administer that legislation and in 1994 the City adopted its own local ordinance. Since the Act was passed, a number of groups have been trying to change the rules. The Governor selected a group to evaluate how to change the Wetland Conservation Act. In 1996, the Governor signed a bill changing the legislation on Thursday of last week. She handed out material outlining the changes. Ms. McPherson stated that the changes are divided into four broad areas. The first area is the exemptions. There was controversy regarding the definition of agricultural land. There is new language defining agricultural land. The diminimus area allowed to be filled has been increased from 400 squared feet for all areas of the state. In Anoka County, that area would be increased to 5,000 square feet for wetland types 1, 2, 6, and 7, excluding white cedar and tamarack wetlands. Using a diagram, Ms. McPherson explained how these changes might affect different configurations of landowners. Ms. McPherson stated the third exemption is also related to a controversial issue regarding draining of wetlands related to ditch repair and maintenance. These changes are related to wetlands that have been in existence for over twenty-five years. The changes do not include types 3, 4, and 5, wetlands. It does, however, include some financial incentives to encourage landowners not to maintain ditches, but it does allow the spoil disposal into wetlands adjacent to the ditch. Ms. McPherson stated the fourth exemption allows spoil deposition for wildlife habitat improvements. Exemption five also allows repair of individual sewage treatment systems. For public roads, the State will develop a statewide wetland bank. For repair, maintenance, and reconstruction of existing public roads, it will be the responsibility of the BWSR to replace wetlands from the bank. For new public roads in areas where 80% of the original wetland still remains (the north and east parts of the state), wetland impacts can be mitigated by purchasing from a subsidized wetland bank. In other areas, credits may also be purchased but at cost. The State is also requiring that metro area impacts are replaced in the metro area. Ms. McPherson stated there is a change in the statute to encourage local governmental units to work together to develop comprehensive wetland protection and management plans. If governments do that, the replacement requirements change dramatically from 2:1 to 1:1. The amount of replacement is equal as opposed to being greater. There are some incentives to do some comprehensive planning. She stated she proposes to submit letters to both ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 16, 1996 PAGE 3 Watershed Management Organizations to see if there might be some stronger action on their parts to do some more comprehensive wetland management. Ms. McPherson stated the key to the wetland management plan is that wetlands would be assessed based on their functions and values, as the basis for wetland protection. This means once a wetland is identified, it is ranked in terms of where it is on the priority scale, whether it should be protected completely or whether some encroachment could occur and, if so, where would replacement areas be? The advantage to the City would be, if the City worked with the Waste Management Organization or some adjacent cities, it would then broaden the area of replacement. If, for instance, there was a wetland impact in Fridley and the City was short on wetland restoration areas, the City could go outside its boundaries within the plan area to improve or restore wetlands in adjacent communities, if those areas were identified. Ms. McPherson stated there is also a wetland preservation program that provides property tax relief to the County once an area is exempted from taxes. If an owner puts a high priority wetland in a conservation easement, that area is then exempt from any property taxes. The State is proposing to reimburse counties for the potential loss in tax base. This is the first time that the State is recognizing the tax impact to counties by encouraging conservation along with financial incentives. Ms. McPherson stated the last area of change is the liability issue in terms of taking claims. The new amendment includes a statement that the State will assume liability for cost of claims including litigation which occur against a local government because of the local governmental unit properly implementing the Wetland Conservation Act and its associated rules. Ms. McPherson directed the Commission members to the last two sheets of her handout, which she stated was a thorough explanation of the drainage exemption that has diagrams that show what can occur in terms of ditch maintenance and repair. She mentioned that there is still some incongruity between the ditch laws and the wetland conservation laws, which she believed the State was trying to rectify. Mr. Sielaff stated that he thought the City local ordinance wetland ordinance will have to be amended to reflect the current statute. Ms. McPherson agreed. Mr. Saba asked what happens if a guy has a property with six lots on it. Could ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 16, 1996 PAGE 4 he take 5,000 square feet off each lot and literally destroy the wetland? Ms. McPherson stated that there was the 5,000 square feet or the not to exceed 5% of the wetland area. In the case of multiple property owners, each owner would only be able to fill 5% of their land area. It really depends on the acreage of the wetland. It is still limited by the 5%. Mr. Saba stated that the City's ordinance is more restrictive than the State's now. Ms. McPherson agreed and stated there is nothing to prevent the Commission from recommending that the local ordinance not be revised to comply with the State's amendments. Mr. Sielaff stated he believed the City would lose the liability coverage from the State if it did not revise the local ordinance to reflect the less restrictive amendments. Mr. Saba agreed, but thought it would be possible to adopt a bufferzone ordinance. He asked Ms. McPherson what the implementation implications of a bufferzone ordinance would be. Ms. McPherson stated that such an ordinance would be administered under a variance process. The City would have the option of requiring a variance should a landowner decide that he/she wanted to impact the bufferzone and/or go in even farther into the wetland. The City would then have a"double-layer" of protection. Mr. Saba suggested that this legislation be used to justify writing and adopting a good wetland bufferzone ordinance and suggested that the City look at the City of Eagan's wetland buffer zone ordinance. Ms. McPherson stated she believed the City of Eagan was the first city that did a comprehensive wetland inventory. The original purpose for the inventory was that the City of Eagan tied their natural wetlands into stormwater management systems. She stated that White Bear Lake, Shoreview, and Minnetonka also have good bufferzone ordinances. Mr. Saba stated he believed a bufferzone ordinance would be a good preservation strategy. Mr. Sielaff asked what would happen if the City continued to have a wetland ordinance that was more restrictive than the State. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 16, 1996 PAGE 5 Ms. McPherson stated that she would have to forward that question to BWSR. Mr. Svanda stated that the Commission had already asked that question and that it was his understanding that the City would lose the liability coverage from the State. Ms. McPherson stated she believed the direction of the Commission's discussion led very strongly toward the goal of completing a comprehensive wetland management plan. This would involve looking at the existing wetlands and assigning values and functions to each wetland, prioritize wetlands for restoration, preservation and replacement, or no impact. The wetland inventory becomes the guide for the implementation of a bufferzone ordinance. She stated that this was another issue she could discuss with staff at BWSR. Mr. Sielaff asked if BWSR was taking any action as a result of these amendments. Ms. McPherson stated that BWSR would have to develop guidelines for review of wetland plans, should communities choose to pursue that option and also set up the wetland bank for public road impacts. Mr. Sielaff asked if the County would be the largest area that these wetland exchanges would be occurring. Ms. McPherson stated that she thought it would be more appropriate to work within the existing Watershed Management Organization framework. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Planning Project Ms. McPherson stated that the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Planning Project (MWCP) has been underway since 1993. The MWCP is a two-phase project. Project report number one is the result of Phase I of the project. Phase I of the project involved interviewing people from around the State and asking them to identify what their issues were regarding wetland regulation as it was currently applied at the time of the interviews, which included at least three layers of bureaucracy at the federal, state and local levels of government. The project is funded by a federal grant from the Environmental Protection Agency. Matching funds were provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Ms. McPherson stated that the purpose of Phase II of the project is to develop a statewide wetland management plan. This second phase of the project will use ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 16, 1996 PAGE 6 the findings of Phase I as the basis and rationale for the statewide wetland management plan. Participants in Phase II of this project include the Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. She stated that the purpose of this project was to establish a wetland regulation strategy that will coordinate regulatory efforts, set statewide wetland goals, assist local government units with wetland regulation, and inform the public regarding wetland benefits. Ms. McPherson stated the structure of the project includes two work teams: one is a technical team and the other is a policy and process team. Ms. McPherson stated that she was on team B which is the policy and process team. There are 64 work team members, 16 members on each team, and 16 alternates. There is a broad range of people on what is called the consultant pool. The participants on these teams come from all walks of life, state agencies, local governments, county boards, and just interested people in the private sector and private individuals. Ms. McPherson stated they have been meeting monthly since November. The focus of the first five meetings was to attempt to figure out a different practice of managing resources on a statewide level. This purpose comes from the concern that no net loss of wetlands or the blanket approach to regulation is not working. This lesson has been learned from the attempt to implement the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. There are 22 counties in Northwestern Minnesota who have refused to adopt the statute because of the perceived impacts. The State has placed development moratoriums on those counties, preventing them from doing anything that would impact wetlands. Over the course of these five meetings, the focus has been to look at regional differences. They have looked at the ecological classifications which identify and characterize units of land with similar climactic, geological, physical and biological features which are significant for natural resource management. Mr. Saba recommended that the project get on the Internet. Ms. McPherson said she would forward that recommendation to the project coordinator. She also stated that it has been interesting to listen to what is going on in different areas of the state. She stated that natural resources and economic factors and how they differ from region to region in the state have to be considered. She distributed two summary reports and an very early draft of what the project participants see as basic components that will be included in a state wetlands conservation plan. She stated she would continue to forward ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 16, 1996 PAGE 7 summary reports to the Commission. Mr. Saba asked if any other state has accomplished this activity. Ms. McPherson stated that Washington State has done something similar. 2. OLD BUSINESS: a. Followup to Comment Letter on Six Cities Watershed Management Plan Rewrite - Discuss and Respond to City Manager's Concerns Ms. Campbell stated that she drafted the attached letter dated March 28, 1996, to the Six Cities Watershed Management Organization for Bradley Sielaff's signature. The letter was delivered to the Chair of the SCWMO and carbon copied to the Fridley City Manager, William W. Burns; Director of Parks and Recreation, Jack Kirk; Nature Center Coordinator, Siah St. Clair; and BWSR. She also reported that the SCWMO did not agree to move its April meeting, but did establish a public hearing for 7:30 p.m. on April 25, 1996. Ms. Campbell stated the City manager has requested that the Commission respond to the four questions he has as a result of reading the EQE's letter. He would like to forward the EQE's concern to the Council on Monday April 22, 1996, prior to the public hearing, when the EQE appears before the SCWMO to forward its concerns. He hopes to determine the areas of agreement between the Council and the EQE on this issue and to determine whether or not the EQE will be speaking for the City Council or simply reflecting the EQE's concerns regarding the water management plan rewrite. Mr. Sielaff stated that the March 28, 1996, letter is the EQE's recommendation. The Commission does not want to supersede the Council's decision-making process, but the timing issue has limited the opportunity to have a dialogue with the Council about the Commission's concerns. If the Commission had been notified by the SCWMO in a timely matter as the Commission requested, they would have been able to have to work through the City Council to make sure there was agreement with these statements and to bring them forward at the public hearing as the City of Fridley's concerns. As it is today, when they go to the public hearing, they will have to clearly indicate that this is the Commission's recommendation, not the City of Fridley's. Mr. Svanda stated that the Commission would still like the opportunity to discuss this with the Council to see if they do agree. This is a technical review of the plan, and the Council's review of the document will be concerned with the ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 16, 1996 PAGE 8 political and financial implications of the plan. Ms. Campbell asked the Commission to address the following four questions: Is this the EQE's disposition toward all wetlands or Springbrook Nature Center wetlands specifically? 2. Is the EQE asking the City of Fridley or the Six Cities Watershed Management Organization to establish more stringent controls on wetlands than the Wetland Conservation Act requires? 3. Does a priority on wetland restoration and preservation imply or require that the Stonybrook Creek project be suspended? 4. What does the Commission mean when it uses the term "wetland management"? Mr. Svanda stated that he believed that the Commission was primarily concerned with the Springbrook Nature Center wetland, but in order to get the Springbrook Nature Center wetland addressed, the plan should include a general policy statement about the priority of wetlands over storm water runoff. Ms. Campbell asked if the answer to number one is the Springbrook Nature Center wetland specifically. Mr. Sielaff concurred, but stated again that in order to address the Springbrook Nature Center wetland, there would have to be a policy statement in the plan about the priority of wetland preservation over the management of storm water runoff. Ms. Campbell asked the Commission to respond to question number two. Mr. Svanda stated that it was difficult to answer this since the Wetland Conservation Act has just been amended. Mr. Sielaff stated that this was a development issue and since the Commission was primarily concerned with the Springbrook Nature Center wetland, he did not think that their comments suggested a restrictive policy for all wetlands in the City of Fridley. However, the primary concern is that there is not a wetland management aspect to the plan and what are the implications of having no wetland management aspect to the plan for the future of the nature center? Ms. Campbell asked the Commission to respond to question number three. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 16, 1996 PAGE 9 Mr. Sielaff stated that there is nothing in the EQE's recommendation that would imply the Stonybrook project would have to be suspended. He stated further that the answer to question number two was "no". Ms. Campbell asked the Commission to respond to question number four. Mr. Sielaff stated the plan lacks a wetland management component. That wetland management would include recognition that water quality, quantity and duration have an impact on wetlands, particularly the vegetation and wildlife impacts. Mr. Svanda suggested that what the Commissioner was getting at with regard to wetland management was that the plan should at least address what it will take to maintain wetland vegetation. Mr. Sielaff stated that he was available on March 22, 1996, to discuss this with the Council. Ms. Campbell stated that she would forward the EQE Commission comments to the City Manager. Mr. Sielaff asked who would be attending the public hearing. Mr. Saba said he would be available to attend. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Bondow, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Sielaff declared the motion carried and the April 16, 1996, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Campbell Staff Liaison to the Commission