A LOOK BACK AT WETLAND REPLACEMENT, IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA Jyneen Thatcher 6 th Annual Minnesota Wetlands Conference January 30, 2013

 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

 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

 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

 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

St. Andrews Village, Mahtomedi, RCWD, 1999

 138 sites visited  20 by air photo review only  Inaccessible, no landowner permission

 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

Before, Oct 2010 During, Nov Rapid compliance after notification of enforcement alternatives, Denmark Twp, 2010

 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 State Farm, 1995, Woodbury Oakdale Trails, 2006, VBWD

Birdfeeder station, within reed canarygrass Fence along pond, buffer at wetland Oakwood Lustre Tnhm, 2007, VBWD

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

 Mowing as weed control SMP wetland creation, 1998 Crossroads Commercial, 2005, Woodbury

 As-built surveys to verify construction  Year 1 report most important

 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

 DoR/Easements need better tracking  GIS database? Mann Lake Estates, 1996, RCWD Later excavated by landowner into pond

 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

A LOOK BACK AT WETLAND REPLACEMENT, IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA Jyneen Thatcher 6 th Annual Minnesota Wetlands Conference January 30, 2013 Questions?