Impact Minimization

Sequencing

Prior to approval, proposed impacts to non-exempt wetlands must undergo a process known as sequencing. Sequencing is a review to assess the efforts made by the applicant to follow, in descending order, these principles: Avoidance, Minimization, Reduction or Elimination of impacts over time, and Replacement. Therefore, a Local Government Unit (LGU) may not consider or approve a wetland replacement plan unless it ensures that you have exhausted all possibilities to avoid and minimize, that temporary impacts will be restored, and that all future impacts will be reduced or eliminated. The wetland replacement page will outline wetland replacement, the final part of the sequencing process.

Avoidance

The first step in sequencing is to determine if the project is wetland dependent or if wetland impacts can be avoided by analyzing alternatives.

Wetlands Are To Be Avoided If Any Of The Following Apply:

• Endangered or threatened species: It is determined that the proposed activities will constitute a taking of federal or state-listed endangered or threatened species under Minnesota Statutes, Section 84.0895.
• Rare natural community:The LGU determines that the proposed activity will permanently adversely affect a rare natural community as identified by the DNR's Natural Heritage Program.
• Fish and wildlife resource:The plan would have significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated on a special or locally significant fish and wildlife resource such as :
• fish passage and spawning,
• colonial waterbird nesting colonies,
• migratory waterfowl concentration areas,
• deer wintering areas, and /or
• wildlife travel corridors.
• Archaeological or historical: The LGU determines that the activity will have significant adverse impacts on the archaeological or historical value of a site on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, as designated by the state historic preservation officer.
• Groundwater sensitivity: The LGU determines that the activity will have a significant adverse impact on groundwater quality.
• Surface surface waters: The LGU determines the activity will have a significant adverse impact of the surface water quality of outstanding resource value waters listed in MN Rules 7050.0180 or on trout waters designated by the Commissioner of Natural Resources.
• Educational or research: If the wetland is known to be used for educational or research purposes, it must be maintained or adequately replaced.
• Hazardous waste or contaminants: The LGU determines that the activity involves known hazardous waste or contaminants or such materials are found on the site, the activities must be conducted according to applicable federal and state standards.
• Local Plans: The LGU determines that the project is contradictory to other local plans.

Wetland Dependence Determination

If a project is determined to be wetland dependent by the LGU, it is exempt from the analysis of avoidance alternatives explained bellow. A project is wetland dependent when wetland features, functions, or values are essential to fulfill the basic purpose of the project.

Alternative Analysis

Wetland Dependence Determination

If a project is determined to be wetland dependent by the LGU, it is exempt from the analysis of avoidance alternatives explained bellow. A project is wetland dependent when wetland features, functions, or values are essential to fulfill the basic purpose of the project.

Alternative Analysis:

• For projects impacting less than 10,000 square feet of wetlands, the LGU may provide an on-site sequencing determination without written documentation. The LGU may request additional information.
  
• The applicant shall provide the LGU with documentation describing at least two alternatives in addition to the proposed project that would avoid wetland impacts.
  
• The LGU shall then determine if feasible and prudent alternatives exist to avoid wetland impacts by considering:
• using a different site in the same area,
  
• the general suitability of alternative sites,
  
• modifying the size, scope, configuration or density of the project,
  
• efforts to remove restraints through requests for conditional use permits, variances, planned unit developments, etc., and
  
• physical, economic and demographic requirements of the site (economic considerations alone do not make an alternative not feasible).


• An alternative is determined "prudent and feasible" if it:
• is capable of occurring according to acceptable engineering standards and practices,
  
• is consistent with reasonable standards of public health, safety and welfare,
  
• is environmentally preferred to the proposed project based on a review of social, economic and environmental impacts, and
  
• would not crate any truly unusual problems.
  
• The LGU shall deny a Replacement Plan if a "feasible and prudent" alternative exists that would avoid wetland impacts.