Natural Resources

Evaluating Solar Panel Effects on Wetlands

By Shawn Williams, Sr Environmental Scientist, WSB

Wetlands are vital and dynamic ecosystems that provide numerous benefits to society, including improved surface water quality, flood control, groundwater recharge, and of course wildlife habitat. Wetlands are regulated aquatic resources in the state of Minnesota.

The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) ensures that all wetlands that are disturbed, brought into non-aquatic use, or its function and value are significantly altered are restored or replaced. In the past, the posts/pilings that are used to install solar arrays have not been considered a wetland impact that would require compensatory mitigation under the WCA. The reality is that solar arrays bring wetlands into non-aquatic use and may, or may, not negatively impact the wetland’s quality or function.

Historically, solar arrays have been sited within or near farmed wetlands (wetlands that are plowed).  If solar developers restore the disturbed wetlands following construction, such as with native plant species, the function and value may actually improve, despite the shading from the solar arrays.

To help local governments evaluate the potential impacts to a wetland’s function and value, the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) issued guidance that provides a suggested approach for evaluating projects when they involve the installation of solar panels on posts/pilings in wetlands.

The guidance document can be found on the BWSR website and includes three steps:

1. Evaluate the wetland’s condition
2. Determine the wetland’s current functionality, and
3. Evaluate the effect of the project on the condition and function of the wetland

WSB’s experienced Natural Resources staff are available to assess wetlands to determine the general quality and function/value they provide to the ecological setting and society. The regulatory review and technical assessment will determine if the project wetland impacts require replacement.

Please contact Shawn Williams at 612-360-1305 or [email protected] for additional information or project support.

Preparing for the Conservation Partners Legacy Grant

By Luke Lunde, Professional Soil Scientist and Amy Anderson, Project Engineer, WSB

Applications for all cycles of the Conservation Partners Legacy (CPL) grants opened on August 1. The CPL Grant Program funds conservation projects that restore, enhance or protect forests, wetlands, prairies and habitat for fish, game and wildlife in Minnesota. To be eligible, projects must be located on public lands or private properties with an easement that allows for public access.

Since 2009, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) has been managing the reimbursable program to provide competitive matching grants from $5,000 to $400,000 to local, regional, state and nonprofit organizations.

Finding funding for projects can be challenging and knowing how to take advantage of a grant opportunity can make or break a project’s success.  Here are some helpful ways you can prepare your application for the upcoming fiscal year 2022 grants.

Determine the grant cycle that works best for your project.

There are three programs available: Traditional, Metro and Expedited Conservation Projects (ECP). Grant amounts needed, project activities, eligible land, funding rounds, review processes and project locations all impact the type of grant program that’s best suited for a project. The MN DNR’s website offers a helpful Grant Comparison Cycle worksheet to guide evaluation.

Determine if the matching requirement will impact your application.

A 10% match of the total grant amount requested is required. There are two matching options. A cash match is actual cash contributed by your organization, a third party or supplies or contacted services to be paid during the grant period. An in-kind match is a non-cash donation of a good service that could include personnel time, use of equipment or donated supplies or services.

There is nearly $10 million available for CPL grants for the upcoming fiscal year 2022. Applications must be submitted by September 20, 2021 for the Traditional and Metro grant cycles and by September 13, 2021 for the ECP grant cycle.

Helpful links:

• CPL Evaluation Criteria
• CPL Request for Proposal

Luke Lunde
Luke is a Minnesota Professional Soil Scientist in WSB’s Environmental Natural Resources Group, and he has over nineteen years of natural resource and environmental review experience. Luke’s experience includes soil survey mapping, geologic hazard assessments, karst feature mapping and mitigation plans, wetland delineation, wetland banking, wetland mitigation, habitat restoration, invasive species management, grant writing, erosion control compliance site management, habitat restoration, invasive species management, natural resource planning, environmental permitting and compliance, for numerous projects throughout the Midwest.

Amy Anderson
Amy has over nine years of professional experience in water resources engineering, specializing in stream restoration and watershed management. Amy’s experience in stream restoration spans the project cycle, from surveying and design through construction observation and post-project monitoring. Amy has been the primary author or co-author of Surface Water Management Plans for two separate municipalities (West St. Paul and North St. Paul) and one watershed district (Valley Branch Watershed District) in the metro area and has presented to citizen’s groups, municipal committees, and city councils on surface water management and planning.

US Fish and Wildlife Service decide listing monarch butterfly is “warranted but precluded”

By Roxy Robertson, Environmental Scientist, WSB

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently announced their decision to list the monarch butterfly under the Endangered Species act is “warranted but precluded”. The USFWS will not issue a proposed rule to list the monarch officially until 2024 due to insufficient funding and personnel. The listing will be evaluated annually to determine its eligibility and listing decision may be expedited under a new administration.

What does the USFWS decision mean?

• The “warranted but precluded” decision means that the USFWS has determined the monarch butterfly meets the definition of a threatened or endangered species, but the agency lacks the resources to take further action to list the species at this time.
• Since monarch butterflies still face threats and decline, there is a strong likelihood that monarch conservationists will challenge and litigate the decision.
• If litigation occurs, the USFWS could be ordered to prioritize the listing prior to 2024. This could result in a listing of the species within a short timeframe. If this occurs, partners enrolled in the Candidate Conservation Agreement for Monarch Butterfly on Energy and Transportation Lands (CCAA) are protected against regulatory actions that may occur following the listing decision.

Why is the CCAA important?

• By enrolling in the CCAA, partners will be protected against any regulatory actions that may result from future listing. Enrollment avoids risks to planned projects that may impact monarchs and their habitat by giving assurance that no additional regulatory requirements will be imposed by the USFWS beyond the terms of the CCAA agreement.
• The conservation efforts of enrolled partners will help to save the monarch species. This decision means that monarch butterflies are in trouble and unless the species experiences dramatic improvements in the next few years, a future listing of this species is certain.
• Enrollment in the CCAA demonstrates the partner’s commitment to conservation of this species.

Learn more about the Candidate Conservation Agreement and how the listing decision will impact right of way on energy and transportation lands. 

Using sonar technology to manage invasive species

By Tony Havranek, Sr. Ecologist, WSB

Implementing the Modified Unified Technique on Hanson Lake.

Asian carp are some of the newest invaders of our lakes, rivers and streams. Asian carp is a term used collectively to describe bighead carp, black carp, grass carp and silver carp. Fast growing and invasive, these specific fish are causing problems along the Mississippi River and surrounding bodies of water.

Asian carp are labeled as invasive because of their effect on ecosystems, water quality and native fish populations. Like the Common carp, Asian carp are highly invasive and have disrupted our food web.  In 2019, Hanson Lake #3 Homeowners Association (HOA), located in Nebraska, commissioned the WSB natural resources team to address the growing Asian carp population in the lake. The lake’s recreation had taken a hit because of the carp’s ability to fly out of the water, disrupting boaters and swimmers.

Hanson Lake is unique. In the past, commercial fishing crews had identified high populations of Asian carp, but effectively trapping and netting the fish was challenging due to obstructions at the bottom of the lake. These obstructions were preventing the nets from capturing the fish.

With many non-nettable locations located throughout Hanson Lake, we needed to find a solution that would drive the invasive carp into areas where we could capture and extract them.  A few years ago, I read about a new harvesting technique developed in China called the modified unified technique. Using this technique, fish are herded into a concentrated area where they can be easily netted and harvested. The technique requires the use of underwater speakers and block nets.

In collaboration with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), we decided to implement the Modified Unified Technique on Hanson Lake. We connected underwater speakers to amplifiers and played a pattern of noises including ice cracking, feedback, human voices, gunshots and hammering. The pattern of noises was played on repeat to begin herding the fish into the waiting nets. Throughout several days, the sound waves drove the fish into the nettable areas of the lake where seine nets were placed.

Once the harvest was complete, over 26,000 pounds of rough fish were removed from Hanson Lake. Comparatively in 2018, 8,200 pounds of fish were removed from the lake. Rough estimates indicate that over 30 percent of the lake’s rough fish were removed during this operation which will significantly improve recreation and water quality in the area.

What’s so bad about Asian carp?

Aquatic Invasive Species are behind some of the most drastic changes to freshwater systems in the world today. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Asian carp were first brought to the United States for use in aquaculture ponds. These fish have now invaded the Mississippi River that connects to many bodies of water throughout the nation. Natural Resources organizations and groups are fearful that Asian carp will invade the Great Lakes which would have a severe impact on recreational and commercial fisheries.  Many cities, counties and watersheds are taking proactive steps to mitigate the invasive species to protect and preserve the ecology and water quality throughout the nation.

Read our full Hanson Lake Report here.

Candidate Conservation Agreement: Right of way preservation creates viable habitat for butterflies

By Alison Harwood, Director of Natural Resources, WSB

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is investigating threats to the monarch butterfly. The monarch is being considered to join the list of species registered under the Endangered Species Act. The listing decision is expected to occur in December. If listed, projects and activities that involve impacts to the monarch or their habitat could face delays as a result of required USFWS consultation. To avoid potential delays, transportation and energy groups are enrolling in the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) program. The CCAA allows transportation and energy groups nationwide to gain protections for certain covered activities by implementing conservation measures to sustain a viable habitat for monarchs, within the right of way on energy and transportation lands. Enrolling in the program can help these groups avoid costly project delays.

Protecting our environment allows us to work with nature, not against it.

The monarch butterfly is a beautiful sight, with its brilliant red-orange wings, black veined exterior and white spotting. However, this attractive pollinator is not something to take for granted. The monarch is a vital species in our planet’s ecosystem and contributes to the environment through pollination and as an important food source for birds, small animals and other insects.

Preserving and monitoring butterfly habitat within right of way segments is a top priority for the CCAA and affiliated members. In Minnesota, any stretch of right of way along the road is commonly identified as habitat; except for urban areas that contain no vegetation. This habitat supports milkweed and a variety of blooming nectar plants that monarchs regularly frequent. Before forming a chrysalis, the monarch caterpillar relies on milkweed as its primary food source. Without it, the larva cannot develop into a butterfly.

Monarch habitats are threatened by activities such as mowing, spraying, or grading. If listed and without proper permitting, any damage to monarch habitat as a result of these activities is in direct violation of the Endangered Species Act. Entities in violation of the Endangered Species Act may be fined and unable to continue their project work until proper permitting has been processed and approved.

Morrison County puts conservation measures in place.

WSB recognizes the importance of maintaining, improving and creating a viable habitat. Our Natural Resources team recently partnered with the Morrison County Highway Department to help them determine which segments of right of way require conservation measures. As part of the conservation study, our environmental scientists will calculate and analyze the total acreage of right of way and provide recommendations on conservation best practices (as indicated per the CCAA) such as guidelines for mowing. The CCAA requires each County transportation group to implement conservation measures on five percent of the total right of way area. An approved list of management practices is covered in the agreement for communities to review.

The CCAA program is open for enrollment until the effective listing date (anticipated as December 2021 or January 2022). Members can apply for the program and receive coverage before the ruling is made. Interested entities can only join the CCAA prior to the listing date.

By maintaining, improving and creating a safe habitat, monarchs will have the environment they need to survive and thrive for generations to come.

To learn more about the CCAA and how to enroll, visit their website.

Solar Development and Wetland Regulation

Roxy Robertson, Environmental Scientist, WSB

Solar production in Minnesota has seen dramatic increases in the past few years and continues to grow across the state. With this rapid growth comes challenges about how to regulate the installation of panels at a local level. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), Minnesota has already invested $1.9 billion on solar and additional growth is projected at 834 megawatts over the next five years. The installations of solar “farms”, vast arrays of solar panels, can be seen throughout the state and can generate up to a megawatt of electricity each. Development of these sites often requires large, vacant parcels which may also support natural habitats such as wetlands.

The development application process for these solar farms can be challenging for municipalities, especially those who act as the local government unit (LGU) for the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Developers must work collaboratively with LGUs to demonstrate a sequencing process that shows how their projects are avoiding, minimizing, and if necessary, replacing unavoidable wetland impacts. Under the WCA rule, the installation of posts and pilings from solar panels has traditionally not been considered a wetland impact if they do not significantly alter the wetland function and value. But, as the solar industry grows, LGUs have had questions about whether the installation of solar panels may lead to loss in wetland quality over time which would be a violation of WCA. A strong measure of wetland quality comes from the diversity of the plants within the wetland, factors like shading from panels and disturbances from construction may lead to conversion of the wetland vegetative community, and subsequently, the wetland quality. Loss of wetlands and wetland quality has overlapping effects on drinking water, lake and stream health, native wildlife, soil heath, and pollinators, all of which are important to our Minnesota ecosystems.

So why does this affect you? Many municipalities act as the LGU responsible for implementing WCA. LGUs, alongside other regulating agencies, have been struggling to make impact determinations for sites that install panels in wetlands because there is little data available that addresses the future outcomes of these natural areas. There is a growing need for baseline data about how the quality of wetland vegetation changes throughout the solar development process. If data were available, LGUs could use these as a basis for making determinations.  

Having baseline data about wetland vegetative quality under solar panels is beneficial to both regulators and developers. Regulators will have a scientific basis for making wetland impact determinations within their jurisdiction and developers will see more consistency across municipalities during the permitting process. We may see that wetland quality improves under solar panels in certain circumstances through the planting of native vegetation upon completion of development. In other scenarios, wetland quality may decrease if the existing wetland was of higher quality prior to development.

WSB has started an exciting initiative to collect this baseline data at various solar sites in Minnesota. In 2019, environmental scientists at WSB surveyed wetland vegetation under existing or planned solar panels at four solar farms in varying stages of development. Additional data collection at these sites is planned for the summer of 2020. WSB is in the process of developing a Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) grant application to expand this research in 2021 to more sites across the state and to include other metrics that may influence vegetation such as fixed-tilt or tracker panel types. Support of this research from municipalities will be important for the LCCMR application process and we encourage you to join us in the process through letters of support, in-kind hours, monetary support, or providing access to solar farms within your area. It is an exciting time in the renewable energy industry and WSB is committed to helping advance the clean energy market in a way that is sustainable to our Minnesota environment that we all cherish.

Planning tips for effective wetland permitting

As someone who has been on both the regulator and applicant side of the table, I understand that wetland permitting can seem like a complicated task, involving multiple review agencies and months of careful planning. I’ve witnessed frustrated project developers after growing impatient with the process, and concerned regulators who feared the appropriate steps to minimize impacts were not taken. However, if anticipated correctly, the permitting process can be smooth and painless.

As we approach growing season, it is helpful to understand the project development steps for areas that feature wetlands – even if you don’t expect to impact them.

1. Identify wetlands.

This should be one of the first steps taken during project planning. A desktop-level delineation can be completed anytime by a wetland professional and is used to determine the potential for wetlands on the project site.

Do not assume your site does not have wetlands.

Depending on the results of the review, an onsite wetland delineation may be needed, which can only be completed during specific times of the year (i.e. growing season). Missing this window can cause delays in your project or force you to make design assumptions based on inaccurate data, which can increase the risk for redesign once field data is available.

From the beginning of a delineation to having approved boundaries can take several weeks or months, so advanced planning is essential if the project development indicates a shorter construction timeline. Assigning a trained wetland delineator is important during this step to ensure project boundaries are accurately identified and reported to local reviewing agencies. Mismanagement at this stage can result in extra work and time delays. Once the boundary data is collected, project developers can update the design plan and determine if wetland impacts will occur.

2. Examine potential impacts early.

Wetland impact approvals should always be obtained before you begin local project planning (i.e. plat approval) and identifying potential impacts early in design is key. This ensures that wetland regulation agencies are afforded the opportunity to review site plans and suggest ways to minimize impact and reduce the developer’s risk of costly design changes or permit denial.

3. Contact local wetland regulation agencies.

If impacts are expected, it’s a good idea at this point to inform the local wetland regulation agencies and plan a pre-application meeting. There are several agencies that regulate wetlands and keeping all informed is vital to ensure the permitting process stays on track. The most common agencies that are involved include the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Local Government Unit (LGU), US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and in some areas of the state, Watershed Districts (WD) or Watershed Management Organizations (WMO). Learn more about these wetland regulation agencies.

The amount of impact proposed for a project can affect the length of the review process. The following approval timelines can be used as a guide:

Agency	Permit Type	Days to Approval
WCA LGU	Wetland Impact Replacement Plan	60 days
DNR	Public Waters Permit	60 days
USACE*	Nationwide or General Permit (<0.5 acre)	60 – 90 days
	Letter of Permission (0.5 – 3 acres)	4 – 9 months
	Individual Permit (> 3 acres)	9 – 24 months

*Permit thresholds reported are for non-transportation projects.

Approvals through Watershed Districts Management Organizations vary, so project developers should refer to local guidelines for application and review timelines.

Often, the reviews described above are independent of each other. Approvals from one agency (ie: WCA LGU) does not eliminate the need for approvals from other agencies (ie: DNR). While the agencies may communicate with each other, developers are ultimately responsible for ensuring permit applications are received by each individual agency.

Below is a general timeline of project tasks that should be completed prior to getting approval by local agencies.

Task	Completion in Months (Prior to Local Plan Approval)
Wetland Delineation	8 months prior
Delineation Approval	6 months prior
Permit Pre-Application Meeting	5 months prior
Permit Submittal*	4 months prior
Permit Approval	1 month prior

* Assumes USACE General or Nationwide Permit.

Local ordinances should also be reviewed to ensure that all water resource-related requirements are being met. For example, some cities have wetland buffer setbacks that must be incorporated into the project design.

With proper planning, the wetland permitting process can be smooth and transparent. A little work in the beginning to identify the potential for wetlands can save the project manager from redesign and time delays that derail project progress.

Integrated Design Approach

By Robert Slipka
Feb. 6, 2015

Integrated design brings together a diverse team of design professionals on one project. Projects benefit from this approach because a wider range of experts is contributing throughout the project as a team, rather than acting independently.

Early integration is crucial to reduce the potential for expensive conflicts as design progresses or implementation begins. The integrated design approach involves all parties, including design professionals, clients/owners, permitting agencies, and others. Involvement may also include cost analysis specialists, construction managers, and contractors.

No matter what that project type, an integrated approach helps ensure a holistic outcome rather than a culmination of interdependent elements. Below are two examples of what teams could look like.

Example 1

A site development project is led by a landscape architect or civil engineer with direct integration of specialists such as environmental scientists, ecological specialists, engineers, building architects, electrical engineers, irrigation designers, and the client (including their operations and maintenance staff).

Example 2

A roadway corridor project is led by a transportation engineer and/or a planner. The team for this type of project may integrate urban designers/landscape architects, engineers, environmental scientists, right-of-way specialists, and representatives from numerous government agencies.

Design charrettes and brainstorming sessions are often utilized heavily in the beginning phases of project planning and design. This helps the team identify key goals, strategies, and desired outcomes of the project while also establishing areas of conflict or design implications. Including a diverse range of professionals means a better likelihood of achieving creative solutions that might not be explored in a conventional, non-integrated approach. As the project develops into the construction documents phase, continued collaboration is required to ensure compatibility of spatial character, uses, spaces, materials, and other factors. This approach can also identify conflicts that might not otherwise be identified until late in design or into construction, avoiding unanticipated costs or redesign.

Although an integrated approach provides better results, it is important for consultants and clients to judge how extensively integration needs to occur based on costs and benefits. Some projects are smaller in scale or fee, which can make an elaborate integrated approach difficult to justify. Clients should also be aware that the term “one-stop shop,” often utilized to describe multi-disciplinary firms, does not necessarily mean that an integrated design approach is used for projects. If it is unclear or unproven, clients should ask the consultant to describe how the various team members will be integrated throughout the design process. The ultimate goal is to achieve higher quality projects with increased cost effectiveness to clients.

What Makes a Wetland a Wetland?

By Joe Handtmann
June 10, 2015

A wetland is a flooded area of land with a distinct ecosystem based on hydrology, hydric soils, and vegetation adapted for life in water-saturated soils. Wetlands are heavily protected by federal, state, and local policies due to their environmental benefits and the historical filling and dredging that removed more than 50 percent of them across the country. Wetland types vary based on their location. Mangroves are found along the shores of salty waterbodies while peat bogs are found in cool climates, where slow decomposition facilitates the accumulation of peat over long periods of time. Common wetlands in Minnesota include wet meadows, shallow and deep marshes, scrub-shrub wetlands, and bogs.

Requirements and delineation
To be considered a wetland, the site must have the presence of water, soils indicative of frequent and prolonged flooding, and vegetation suited to handle flooding or saturated soils. Determination of wetland boundaries must be done by a certified wetland delineator based on the Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and appropriate regional supplements. Delineations are subdivided into levels. Level one means onsite inspection is unnecessary; level two means onsite inspection is necessary; and level three, which is a combination of levels one and two.

Hydrology
Identifying hydrology, or presence of water, can be as simple as noticing the sustained presence of water in boreholes or manually measuring surface water, or as difficult as requiring the use of continued monitoring wells and piezometers. Areas with a surface water depth of more than 6.6 feet are considered deepwater aquatic habitats and not wetlands.

Hydric soils
Soils that are saturated for a long period of time display common visual patterns identifiable in a soil profile. Soils developed in anaerobic conditions show unique colors and physical characteristics that are indicative of hydric soils. When water continuously saturates the ground, organic soils are likely to occur. Organic soils are referred to as peats or mucks and require more than 50 percent of the upper 32 inches of soil to be composed of organic material. Hydric mineral soils form under a range of saturated conditions, from permanently saturated to seasonally saturated. Indicators for hydric soils can be found in the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States guide, published by the USDA.

Hydrophytic vegetation
Wetland vegetation is classified by its ability to survive in saturated soil conditions. These classifications range from OBL (obligate wetland plants that usually occur in wetlands), to FAC (facultative plants that occur in wetlands and non-wetlands equally), to UPL (obligate upland plants that are rarely found in wetlands). When OBL, FACW, and FAC species make up the vegetative species at a site, then the site is considered to have hydrophytic vegetation.

Classification
Two main systems are used to classify wetlands in Minnesota – the Circular 39 and the Cowardin systems. Both systems are commonly used when writing permit applications or describing or writing about wetlands. A noteworthy exception is the case of the National Wetlands Inventory, for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service exclusively used the Cowardin system.

Circular 39
The Circular 39 system was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1956, and divides wetlands into eight different types based on water depth and variety of vegetation.

• Type 1: Seasonally Flooded Basin/Floodplain Forest: Soils are flooded during variable seasonal periods. Often found in upland depressions, these wetlands are well-drained during the rest of the year. Vegetation can be quite variable.
• Type 2: Wet Meadow, Fresh Wet Meadow, Wet to Wet-Mesic Prairie, Sedge Meadow, and Calcareous Fen: Soils in these wetlands are usually without standing water, but saturated close to the surface. Vegetation includes sedges, grasses, rushes, and broad-leaved plants. These wetlands are notes for their wildlife habitat capabilities.
• Type 3: Shallow Marsh: Shallow marshes are covered with more than six inches of water throughout the year. Typical vegetation includes grasses, cattails and bulrushes.
• Type 4 – Deep Marsh: Similar to shallow marshes, deep marshes are covered in water from six inches to three feet deep. Cattails, reeds and lilypads are common.
• Type 5: Shallow Open Water: Water is present, but less than six feet deep and fringed with emergent vegetation. This type of wetland is often used for fishing, canoeing and hunting.
• Type 6: Shrub Swamp; Shrub Carr, Alder Thicket: Soils are heavily saturated and may be covered in up to six inches of water. Dogwoods, willows and alders are all common species.
• Type 7: Wooded Swamps; Hardwood Swamp, Coniferous Swamp: Typical trees in wooded swamps include tamaracks, white cedar, arborvitae, black spruce, balsam, red maple, and black ash. The prevalence of trees helps control water flow during flood events. Soils are saturated up to a few inches of the surface and may be covered by up to a foot of water.
• Type 8: Bogs; Coniferous Bogs, Open Bogs: Organic soils are prevalent in bogs, with continually waterlogged soils and a spongy covering of mosses. Shrubs, tamaracks, mosses, and black spruce are all common species.

Cowardin
The Cowardin system was developed in 1979 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to classify wetlands and deepwater habitats. This system was used in the National Wetlands Inventory to identify wetlands. Two major wetland types, coastal and inland, are identified. All Minnesota wetlands are defined as inland (palustrine), which is then subdivided based on vegetation classes and bed material.

 

An overview of wetland/water permitting in Minnesota

Wetlands and other waters in Minnesota are regulated by a variety of agencies, including those at the federal, state, local or watershed level. Knowing who to contact and what type of approvals are needed is important and depends on the scope and location of the project.

Federal level

At the federal level, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates discharge of fill to waters of the U.S. and works within the channel of navigable waters as defined by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. If work is proposed within a water of the U.S., a permit may be required through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Project impacts will fall into one of the following permit categories:

• Regional General Permit (GP): These permits are issued for projects that impact less than 0.5 acres of wetland and authorize a specific list of impacts, or authorize work that is regulated and approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) through the Public Waters program. It typically takes three to four months to obtain this permit. In Minnesota, approval with a GP automatically includes EPA/MPCA Section 401 Certification.
• Letter of Permission (LOP): These permits are issued for projects that impact wetlands between 0.5 to three acres (non-road projects) or 0.5 to five acres (road projects). COE performs an environmental assessment, taking four to 12 months to obtain this permit. In Minnesota, this approval automatically includes EPA/MPCA Section 401 Certification.
• Individual Permit (IP): These permits are issued for projects that exceed the thresholds for the GP and LOP. COE performs an environmental assessment, taking anywhere from nine months to two years to obtain this permit. EPA/MPCA Section 401 Certification must be obtained separately.

State level

At the state level, the DNR regulates areas below the Ordinary High Water (OHW) of wetlands and waters listed as Public Waters. (View maps of DNR Public Waters. Obtain the OHW elevation from the DNR Area Hydrologist.)

If work is proposed below the OHW of a public water, a Public Waters Work permit will be required, which typically takes 60 to 90 days to obtain. It can take longer to obtain the permit depending on the complexity of the project. The DNR also issues permits for other types of work within public waters, including docks, crossings, dewatering, dredging, and boat launches.

Local level

At the local level, the State of Minnesota issued MN Rule 8420, the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). (Guidance can be found here.)

The objective of the WCA is to obtain no net loss of wetlands within the state. The rule is administered at the local level by a local government unit (e.g., the city, county, watershed district, or soil and water conservation district.

If a project will impact a wetland, an approval through the Wetland Conservation Act is likely necessary. There are several types of approvals that may apply to the project:

• No loss: Indicates that the wetland will not be impacted by the project (e.g., temporary impacts, impacts to incidental wetland).
• Exemptions: Various exemptions exist for projects that are required to maintain public health and safety but also may result in minor wetland impacts.
• De minimis: Allows a minimal amount of wetland impact to occur depending on the location of the wetland impact within the state.
• Replacement plan: Allows wetland impacts to occur given that no other alternatives exist, impacts have been minimized to the extent practicable, and impacts will be mitigated (e.g., replaced).
• Road bank replacement: Allows the state to replace for impacts to wetlands required due to the reconstruction of an existing serviceable public roadway to meet safety or design standards. This program is available to city, county, township, and other local road authorities. It is not available for Minnesota Department of Transportation projects.

To obtain any of the above permits, an applicant must provide project information that includes a project purpose and need, alternatives analysis, impact minimization measures, and a mitigation plan. Typically, mitigation is required at between a 1:1 to 2.5: 1 ratio.

Some watershed districts within the state also have regulatory authority over the waters within their watershed. Though each watershed district has their own specific rules, they typically cover impacts resulting from stormwater, erosion, dredging, wetland impacts, and floodplain fill. (Determine which watershed district a project is located within.)

What does this mean for a project?

If a project has the potential for water resource impacts, it is best to start coordinating with the applicable regulatory agencies as soon as possible (ideally a year in advance of construction). If you are unsure of whether your project will impact wetlands, begin by contacting your local WCA representative, Army Corps of Engineers regulatory department, and/or DNR Area Hydrologist.