a look back at wetland replacement, in washington county, minnesota jyneen thatcher 6 th annual...

THE GOOD, THE BAD,

AND THE UGLYA LOOK BACK AT WETLAND

REPLACEMENT, IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA

Jyneen Thatcher6th Annual Minnesota Wetlands

ConferenceJanuary 30, 2013

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

CHAPTER 2: REALITY CHECK Limit WRP visits to these, only:

Not currently being monitored by consultantNot recently monitored by LGU

Limit amount of information collectedSize = ok/notVeg = ok/notHydrology = ok/not

Deed restrictions if readily availableCounty records not easily checked

CHAPTER 2, CONTINUED If not accessible from road, air photo

only Excavations and ordered restorations,

air photo onlyLetter 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

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

PROCESS

St. Andrews Village, Mahtomedi, RCWD, 1999

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 138 sites

visited

20 by air photo review only Inaccessible,

no landowner permission

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS WRP sites not built = 3

One became compliant quicklyTwo still in processTwo questioned, still being reviewed

Vegetation quality generally lowExceptions were noted, (8 sedge

communities) In early years open water, drier after 2000Performance standards usually not met

HOMESTEAD ESTATES

Before, Oct 2010

During, Nov 2010

2011

Rapid compliance after notification of enforcement alternatives, Denmark Twp, 2010

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS CONT.

Monitoring reports Mostly none, some

had 1 or 2A few consultants

had majority of reports submitted

Buffer complianceBetter in associations Correlation with

landowner desires

State Farm, 1995, Woodbury

Oakdale Trails, 2006, VBWD

BUFFER RESPECT

Birdfeeder station, within reed canarygrass

Fence along pond, buffer at wetland

Oakwood Lustre Tnhm, 2007, VBWD

VEGETATION QUALITY

Brookview Terrace, 1999, Woodbury

Settlers Glen, 2000, Stillwater

Strong correlation between existing vegetation on site and resulting vegetation in new wetland.

LUCKY VEGETATION? Mowing as weed

control

SMP wetland creation, 1998

Crossroads Commercial, 2005, Woodbury

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As-built surveys to verify construction

Year 1 report most important

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

Hanson, 1997, Hugo

138 projects x (?/report) = lost revenue

CHAPTER 6: CONT. DoR/Easements need better tracking

GIS database?

Mann Lake Estates, 1996, RCWDLater excavated by landowner into pond

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

THE GOOD, THE BAD,

AND THE UGLYA LOOK BACK AT WETLAND

REPLACEMENT, IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA

Jyneen Thatcher6th Annual Minnesota Wetlands

ConferenceJanuary 30, 2013

Questions?