Stakeholder Advisory Committee
WCA Assessment Stakeholder Meeting Summary
MnDOT Conference and Training Center
July 10, 2006
Keith Hanson, Mn Power/Mn Chamber of Commerce
Dan Girolamo, Board of Water and Soil Resources
Rick Dahlman, DNR-Forestry
Bruce Gerbig, DNR-Waters
Laurie Fairchild, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Roger Lake, Mn Association of Watershed Districts
Lawrence Zdon, PCA
Tom Warmka, Association of Mn Counties
Mollie Dean, Sierra Club
Lisa Frenette, Builders Association of Mn
Ben Meyer ,Wetland Professionals Association
Keith Carlson, Metropolitan Inter-County Association
Sandy Hooker, Mn Association of Townships
Dan Greensweig, Mn Association of Townships
Kay Cook, Board of Water and Soil Resources
Mary Mueller, Minnesotans for Wetlands
Allyz Kramer, Wetland Professionals Association
Tamara Cameron, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Sarah Denali, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Brian Pasko, Sierra Club
Bob Whiting, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mark Ten Eyck, Mn Center for Environmental Advocacy
Sarma Straumanis, Mn/DOT
Brian Watson, Dakota SWCD/Mn Association of Soil and Water
Call to Order.
Dave Weirens called the meeting to order at 1:12 pm. Introductions
were made. Weirens referenced the Governor’s letter to remind
attendees that the task at hand is to do more to limit the loss of
wetlands through the Wetland Conservation Act.
Dale Krystosek shared his power point presentation that explained
replacement ratios for WCA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
activities. He also discussed actions eligible for credit. Krystosek
explained that WCA divides the state into three regions with the
lowest replacement ratios in the North. A mitigation strategy is
being prepared to address the scarcity of wetland restoration sites
in northeastern Minnesota.
Base replacement ratios are 2:1 in the less than 80% area and 1:1 in
the greater than 80% area. A factor that may increase this ratio is
in-kind replacement. WCA defines in-kind as same type, same county
or same watershed. Out of kind replacement increases the replacement
ratio. WCA allows using direct replacement for the first acre of
required replacement and banking for the balance.
Krystosek made the following suggestions for changes: 1.) Match the
Corps requirements; 2.) Public value credit (PVC) differences
between WCA and Corps should be resolved; 3.) Higher replacement
ratios should be used for impacts to higher quality wetlands.
A question was asked how the term in-kind refers to wetland type.
Weirens responded that in-kind for WCA is defined as the same county
or watershed, and wetland type.
Krystosek proposed three options:
1.) Maintain the current replacement ratios
2.) Refine the definition of in-kind/ in-place
3.) Increase WCA replacement ratios
Keith Carlson asked to have banking and the variation for the metro
area explained, both for development and transportation. Weirens
commented that the metro area has stricter guidelines than other
parts of the state. Ron Harnack added that the first credit must be
done in a watershed that drains to the metro. Tom Mings added that
there are limitations of where metro impacts can be mitigated.
Flexibility has allowed for a further reach for mitigation.
Krystosek continued to give a historical look at ratio development.
Originally, the ratios were 1:1 – 3:1 depending on the impact and
replacement site. An effort was made to concentrate mitigation
replacement at the impact site. Inlet and outlet characteristics
were also evaluated.
Laurie Fairchild asked if this would require a better definition of
“in-kind” and “in-place”? Krystosek replied that it is tough to
compare in kind and in place in the same definition.
Carlson asked what percentage of wetland replacements are subject to
location? Mings commented that an analysis of the impact of SWANCC
in Minnesota identified about 20% reduction in Corps jurisdiction.
Bob Whiting added that the current figure is 15%. Harnack added that
wetland types 1 and 2 are typically isolated under 404 and that
Swampbuster will pick them up. We will have no-loss even with WCA
Krystosek continued that the Rapanos case might take more from COE
jurisdiction. Mings added that each Corps permit decision will be
case by case so it will be difficult to tell.
Weirens referenced the 2001-2003 wetland report. Table #2 adds
exempt acres to regulated acres. The ratio would have to be
increased by about 50% to achieve no net loss.
A question was asked if we should consider conservation program
acres? Mary Mueller replied CREP and RIM are great programs but they
are not mitigation. Mixing those numbers is wrong and should stop!
Bruce Gerbig asked if the report of gains and losses separated new
wetland credit (NWC) and PVC? Weirens responded that the report
showed the data both with and without PVC included in replacement
Fairchild commented on ratios. PVC with blended scenarios is a
possibility. More PVC with higher ratio if the first acre is NWC.
Keith Hanson redirected the discussion by saying before we begin
thinking about ratios; we need to look at no net loss. We need to
decide if we count conservation acres or not.
Harnack responded by saying that the WCA assessment does not include
conservation acres. However the statewide aspect of wetland gain and
loss should include change from all sources. Hanson stated that we
need a base. We have three or four things moving in different
directions. Harnack replied that we won’t have good numbers for five
A question was asked why RIM or CREP should be counted? Harnack
responded that these acres are not counted in the regulatory program
but counted in the overall statewide goal.
Hanson asked if the statewide goal includes both regulatory and
non-regulatory programs? Harnack replied the State policy is no net
loss and does mention a gain. We don’t have an overall restoration
strategy for the state.
Gerbig asked if ratios are affected by what is included in the term
“in-kind”. Keep the ratios the same but narrow what is considered
Rick Dahlman commented whether federal or state regulatory programs
may get to less than 1:1 with all buffer. Harnack replied that we
are mixing two issues. Modifying replacement ratios to reduce losses
and make sure we have one replacement process to get regulatory
Brian Watson commented increasing ratios will affect buffers.
Krystosek added partially drained basins can generate PVC credit
that is not upland buffer.
Mueller offered that we should consider increasing ratios
proportionally. Increases will be realized in NWC and PVC
replacement. PVC can be upland buffer or storm water ponds. Upland
buffer will increase, which is good, but storm water ponds are
Harnack stated mitigation sites can be higher quality than impacted
areas. Impacts to low value wetlands and are replaced with better
bank sites. We strive for quality and biological diversity. Weirens
added that there is a programmatic bias that all impacted wetlands
are pristine and the replacement should be the same. This is rarely
followed through in real life.
A question was asked if increasing the overall ratio in the less
than 80% area is balanced on the back of the greater than 80% area?
Mueller commented that if not in-kind, the ratio should go up. If
not in advance, the ratio should go up. How about the 1:1
agricultural exemption in the entire state? This should go to 2:1.
Allyz Kramer referenced the Corps draft policy. A project specific
site is never done in advance, concurrent but not in advance.
Whiting offered that banking is in advance.
Mings added airports could easily mitigate in advance because the
other federal regulations require it. This will require more real
Whiting commented on the 81 HUC unit watersheds and their relation
to “in place”.
Fairchild asked if the increase is a function of quality (i.e.
quality and function versus acres)? We should spend more time on
this subject. Krystosek stated that higher ratios could go ½ NWC and
½ PVC per Mueller’s comment.
Whiting mentioned that upland buffers are an integral part of
wetlands. WCA and the Corps have issues to work out on wetland
Fairchild compared created wetlands with natural wetlands. One acre
of created does not equal one acre of natural wetland.
Weirens summarized there seems to be some agreement that a blended
system may be possible. Brian Watson followed by stating that a good
wetland is the practitioner’s goal. We could eliminate the
mitigation timing issue and decrease our options from 16 to 8.
A question was asked regarding the percent split between in advance
versus not in advance? Krystosek responded but most mitigation in
the north is done in advance.
Weirens added, “concurrently” is recognized by WCA but not the
Kramer mentioned that contractors are used to do the work when they
are on site and available to do the work.
Carlson asked about transportation mitigation. What percent is done
via the bank? Do withdrawal equal purchases that are NWC + PVC?
Krystosek replied yes, if 2:1 replacement is required.
Carlson mentioned that a price determination is not made? Weirens
replied that private bankers are also showing equal value between
NWC and PVC.
Mollie Dean asked if a definition is needed for “not in advance”.
Krystosek replied that, failing to comply with replacement timing
can result in a violation.
Mark Ten Eyck asked if the impact could occur today and then
replaced in six years? Whiting added, no, the timing of replacement
is part of the permit process. Permit conditions are decided based
on the plan with replacement identified.
Dan Greensweig asked if the costs for wetland credits changes?
Harnack replied that we will look at the costs, what and who.
Mueller commented that the environmental costs need to be addressed
Harnack referenced Watson’s comment and inquired about the
environmental cost. Dean mentioned that she had the same question
about environmental cost. Harnack commented that back in 1991 early
WCA discussions had a 4:1 replacement ratio for high quality
Wetland Credit Options
Krystosek continued his presentation by explaining the eight actions
that create eligible credit:
1.) Restore Hydrology
2.) Partially Drained – degraded sites typically are eligible for
50% PVC for the degraded area or 25% NWC of the area restored.
3.) ENRV (NWC or PVC) – functional assessment is needed and this is
limited to truly exceptional sites.
4.) Restoration of farmed wetlands
5.) Upland Buffer
6.) Previously terminated federal programs
7.) Mineral Extraction
8.) Water Quality Treatment areas
Harnack commented that wildlife needs a 4:1 upland to wetland ratio
for ideal conditions. We need to look at function and values and
create incentives to encourage quality. Farmed wetlands create a
Rick Dahlman inquired about buffer calculations, a 50 buffer on a
non-municipal site would generate 3 acres wetland with less than 3
acres of buffer or a 50 acre wetland would generated more than 50
acres of buffer.
Mings mentioned that five bank applications for the Local Road
Wetland Replacement Program are proposing to use the expired program
option to generate wetland credits.
Harnack commented that 300,000 acres of land in the Conservation
Reserve Program are expiring between now and 2010. Weirens added
under the proposed EPA/Corps rule this practice is limited, making
this option impractical under WCA.
Harnack stated that he wants to hear about the eligibility of water
quality treatment areas for wetland credit. People don’t seem to
like the single cell stormwater ponds. Weirens added that a concern
exists about double dipping with stormwater ponds.
Fairchild stated that stormwater ponds require maintenance. Are
wildlife being attracted to unhealthy areas? Weirens responded that
we need to create incentives to make the wetlands and stormwater
ponds more similar. Vegetation is an issue but water storage is the
main reason that stormwater ponds are created.
Whiting commented that the Corps does not authorize credit for
single cell stormwater ponds.
Larry Zdon offered a water quality perspective. Stormwater ponds are
used to satisfy permit conditions and therefore are required under
the permit conditions.
Dahlman commented that stormwater ponds and adjacent areas conflict.
Adjacent landowners look at chemicals, fish and mowing as common
Watson estimated that 50% of their PVC comes from stormwater ponds.
He recommends elimination of this credit or possibly lowering it to
Carlson mentioned that he understands the double dipping concept.
Weirens added that stormwater ponds are already required for storm
water management, plus receive credit under WCA?
Carlson commented about the counter intuitive nature of current
replacement that provides more credit for creations than
Sarma Straumanis added that double dipping may be appropriate to
receive credit. Weirens responded that the proposed Mitigation MOU
and others would like to eliminate stormwater pond eligibility.
Greensweig stated that townships may have a problem with this.
Ten Eyck asked if anyone in favor of allowing double dipping? (a few
hands went up)
Mings commented that stormwater ponds are related to upland
mitigation. Weirens asked then why should they give them NWC?
Harnack mentioned the builder’s association will have concerns over
eliminating this entirely. Change the criteria but can’t have it
both ways. If the Corps won’t allow it, it will be difficult for WCA
to allow it.
Fairchild asked if WCA will be able to require management if
stormwater rules are in place? Weirens responded maintenance would
have to be non-inclusive.
Zdon offered that stormwater ponds do not mimic wetland functions. A
concern is the net loss calculation problem. Don’t count stormwater
ponds and upland PVC when tracking wetland gains and losses.
Krystosek referenced a Hermantown case where untreated stormwater
inflow into a wetland was an impact.
Weirens asked for comment on the proposed & current replacement
denominations where WCA has two types: NWC and PVC whereas the Corps
only has NWC. Simplification is needed.
Gerbig passed on a comment from Doug Norris Wetland impacts in
shoreland areas should be replaced with “in-kind” sites.
Tamara Cameron asked for clarification on 404 references in the
ratio handouts. What is the source of data in the 404 column? The
Corps requirements are guidelines versus rule in state rule.
Mings presented a brief overview of the Minnesota Wetland Banking
A question was asked regarding what percentage of total acres are
replaced? Harnack replied about 20%. PVC credit sales are less than
Carlson inquired about private credit withdrawals. How does BWSR
generate credits? Are they only used for the transportation program?
Weirens replied that BWSR buys credits from existing private bank
accounts and through its own projects.
Mueller referenced the 2003 Wetland Report and compared year 1 data
on page 13 (1630 acres of local road impacts) with page 15 that
shows only 522 debited? Weirens responded that BWSR balances impacts
within 2 years under our agreement with the Corps. Mueller replied
that’s not what you told us in March. Weirens replied that the
timing issue is different.
Krystosek mentioned there is a longer delay with public site
deposits which may be partly responsible for this discrepancy.
Mueller continued by asking if BWSR should meet the Rule under the
Road Program that requires timing.
Carlson asked if MnDOT is creating its own deposits? Are they
replacing impacts adjacent to projects or using banking? Are they
making no distinction between PVC and NWC? Purchasing credits will
require data from the road authority.
Harnack replied that the flat rate charged by BWSR when credits are
sold to a road authority does not distinguish between NWC and PVC.
Weirens added that BWSR and MnDOT recently entered into an agreement
on replacing transportation credit.
Carlson asked if we talking about MnDOT or the Road Program? Weirens
replied that the MOU is one year old so we do have not data yet but
they buy or create credits for their own use.
Mings referenced a graduate study from Wisconsin that evaluated the
banking credit balance issue. Minnesota has more credits in the bank
and also has a slower turn around with credits.
Harnack made clear that we would not let private bankers off the
hook. We will require high quality replacement sites for public
sites and others. The market will drive this process.
Carlson asked if you have enough credits or is there a shortfall?
Weirens responded to say bank opportunities will be available. Bank
sites in low demand areas will result in less bank development.
Harnack mentioned that impacts can be mitigated anywhere in the
state with a penalty.
Whiting added that there is a crediting and debiting side when
examining wetland replacement.
Carlson continued by asking, are in–kind needs met by the Road
Program? Weirens answered that our current effort focus on current
needs with regards to wetlands type. Harnack offered that the metro
is ok. Statewide will depend on funding.
Mueller had two issues: (1) high quality is great and (2) a market
driven system is needed. She further expressed concerns over the
in-lieu fee option and northeast Minnesota Strategy whether there
will be Stakeholder input. Will the rulemaking process go through
the stakeholder group? Weirens responded that the Northeast
Minnesota Mitigation Strategy will go through the BWSR Board. In
lieu fee is still an option, although both BWSR and the Corps are in
agreement that there is no plan to implement in-lieu fee in
Harnack stated that counties that went into the banking program are
not happy they did so. They would prefer to buy from the bank.
Weirens asked for other comments, is there anything further?
Harnack presented two major issues. First, are people in favor of
one common bank? (no comments) Secondly, are people in favor of
getting rid of PVC credit? (yes and no responses)
Fairchild recommended that upland buffer credit should be
Zdon commented that we are trying to give credit for what is not
wetland. If you are counting, extract stormwater ponds and upland
PVC to evaluate the no net loss issue.
Ten Eyck commented that maybe we should consider upland destruction.
Weirens responded this is the Wetland Conservation Act.
Zdon asked what happens if Oak Savanna upland, for example, is
spared to move the mitigation elsewhere? Kramer added that some
LGU's take this discretion to protect uplands
Carlson asked for a review of the process. Weirens replied the
stakeholder group comments are referred to the BWSR wetland
committee, which in turn go to the BWSR Board and Clean Water
Cabinet with a feedback loop to the stakeholders group. We will look
for consensus in November.
Dean asked what process will we use to convey stakeholder data to
the wetland committee? Weirens answered a summary report will be
Harnack confirmed that the meeting notes are the report.
Weirens added that this is not the final word on ratios as was with
the exemptions. Being not further comments the meeting was adjourned
at 4:10 p.m.
the Board of Water and Soil Resources | News | Local
Governments and Related Agencies |
| Contact Us | Search This Web Site
| North Star
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil
520 Lafayette Road North
Saint Paul, MN 55155
(651) 296-3767; Fax (651) 297-5615; TTY (800) 627-3529
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Send your feedback or technical questions to
All content on this
web site is available in alternative formats on request.