1 / 18

The Good , the Bad , and the Ugly

The Good , the Bad , and the Ugly. A LOOK BACK AT WETLAND REPLACEMENT, IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA. Jyneen Thatcher 6 th Annual Minnesota Wetlands Conference January 30, 2013. Chapter 1: The Proposal.

akeem-durham
Télécharger la présentation

The Good , the Bad , and the Ugly

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Good,the Bad,and the Ugly A LOOK BACK AT WETLAND REPLACEMENT, IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA Jyneen Thatcher 6th Annual Minnesota Wetlands Conference January 30, 2013

  2. Chapter 1: The Proposal • Revisit all mitigation sites to evaluate long-term success. Check records for deed restrictions • Visit ordered restoration sites to evaluate long-term success and compliance • Visit “pond” excavation sites to evaluate long-term success • Follow up as needed

  3. Chapter 2: Reality check • Limit WRP visits to these, only: • Not currently being monitored by consultant • Not recently monitored by LGU • Limit amount of information collected • Size = ok/not • Veg = ok/not • Hydrology = ok/not • Deed restrictions if readily available • County records not easily checked

  4. Chapter 2, continued • If not accessible from road, air photo only • Excavations and ordered restorations, air photo only • Letter sent requesting permission to visit • Deeds not checked; D&U easements D&U easements considered • New Wetland Credit only, not Public Value not PVC • Did not re-check MnDOT, DNR or BWSR DNR, DNR, or BWSR banks

  5. Chapter 3: Process • Air photo review; property line for reference • Check with LGU for missing documents • Coordinate site visits • Invite LGU/TEP • Provide final documentation to LGU • Provide summary findings to BWSR

  6. Process St. Andrews Village, Mahtomedi, RCWD, 1999

  7. Chapter 4: Results • 138 sites visited • 20 by air photo review only • Inaccessible, no landowner permission

  8. Chapter 5: Findings • WRP sites not built = 3 • One became compliant quickly • Two still in process • Two questioned, still being reviewed • Vegetation quality generally low • Exceptions were noted, (8 sedge communities) • In early years open water, drier after 2000 • Performance standards usually not met

  9. Homestead Estates Rapid compliance after notification of enforcement alternatives, Denmark Twp, 2010 Before, Oct 2010 During, Nov 2010 2011

  10. Chapter 5: Findings cont. • Monitoring reports • Mostly none, some had 1 or 2 • A few consultants had majority of reports submitted • Buffer compliance • Better in associations • Correlation with landowner desires Oakdale Trails, 2006, VBWD State Farm, 1995, Woodbury

  11. Buffer respect Fence along pond, buffer at wetland Birdfeeder station, within reed canarygrass Oakwood LustreTnhm, 2007, VBWD

  12. Vegetation quality Brookview Terrace, 1999, Woodbury Settlers Glen, 2000, Stillwater Strong correlation between existing vegetation on site and resulting vegetation in new wetland.

  13. Lucky vegetation? • Mowing as weed control SMP wetland creation, 1998 Crossroads Commercial, 2005, Woodbury

  14. Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations • As-built surveys to verify construction • Year 1 report most important

  15. Chapter 6: cont. • Monitoring reports aren’t being done. • Too costly? • Too much detail required? • Contract management? • Vegetation standards may be unreasonable • Invasive species management is unsustainable • Keep promises realistic 138 projects x (?/report) = lost revenue Hanson, 1997, Hugo

  16. Chapter 6: cont. • DoR/Easements need better tracking • GIS database? Mann Lake Estates, 1996, RCWD Later excavated by landowner into pond

  17. Epilogue • Process has gotten better over time • More equitable replacement being proposed • Larger developments have better records than small projects • Reasonable quality expectations • Consider vegetation quality of impacted area • Dealt with during sequencing • Regarding no-net-loss in Washington County- much more wetland created than shortfall from individual projects • Wildlife restorations • Non-completed bank projects

  18. Questions? The Good,the Bad, and the Ugly A LOOK BACK AT WETLAND REPLACEMENT, IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA Jyneen Thatcher 6th Annual Minnesota Wetlands Conference January 30, 2013

More Related