Wetland report/Svoboda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' M . � M . types from a scientific perspective become only a matter of discussion between scientists. However, when wetland types are applied from a regulatory perspective, accuracy in definition becomes crucial because certain activities may be permitted in one wetland type and prohibited in another. At present, Wetland Types 1L and 7 are subject to the same wetland regulatory requirements and exceptions. However, that may not be always the case and therefore it is important to note the crucial yet subtle differences between the two types. The majority of bottomland floodplain forests in many years have water tables several feet beneath the soil surface. The language "throughout the growing season" is quite specific in Circular 39. A careful consideration of the species described in the listing provided by Shaw and Fredine (l 956) indicates that the habitat requirements of the species listed include the typical presence of a near surface high water table whereas the description of a Type 1L forested wetland describes the term "bottomland hardwood", a rather vague non-specific term but tree species generally included in this category are elm, cottonwood, green ash, and silver maple. Bottomland hardwoods do not include the species described as associated with hardwood swamps. Type 7 wetlands are persistently wet under all but the driest conditions whereas Type 1/1L wetlands are generally dry except under the wettest of conditions. The distinction is significant. In general, the Board of Water and Soil Resources cross-reference classification (Mn Rules 8420.0549 subp. 2.) are generally accurate but the designation of PEMC as a Type 3 wetland poses some problems. Where the Type 3 wetland is comprised of cattails, a de minimus exemption of 400 square feet applies but where the wetland is reed canary grass, also a Type 3 designation should technically apply based on the above discussion. The reed canary grass wetlands do not fit well into the "C" modifier category nor do they fit into the "B": modifier � either. As a matter of standard practice, it would seem best to designate reed canary grass wetlands as Type 2 wetlands regardless if the modifier is "B" of"C". The difference is important in that a de minimus exemption of anywhere from 2000 square �eet to 10,000 square feet might be applicable. Also being accurate with regard to wetland type is important when designation of the regulatory wetland type is done based on if the deepest part of the basin or the dominant vegetation is the wetland type that determines allowable fill. This requirement often over- regulates the reed canary grass fringe and eliminates the possibility of applying the 2000to 10,000 square foot de minimus in many cases where a very small percentage of the overall basin is cattail but because the deepest part of the basin criteria is applied, only 400 square feet of de minimus fill may be used. In general, while this may seem to be an arcane discussion, in reality it is crucial in order far the regulated community to rightfully claim the wetland exemptions that the law permits. Conversely, it entitles the landowner to rightfully claim useable land for development purposes. A clear understanding and accurate interpretation of the classification system is necessary in order for the exemptions available under the de minimus categories to be appropriately applied.