Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55 155-40-_

April 8, 2003

Water Docket U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Mailcode 4101T 1200 PennsylvaniaAve. N.W. Washington D.C. 20460

Subject: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Clean Water Act Regulatory Definition of "Waters of the United States". Docket ID No. OW-2002-0050; 68 FR 1991-1 997.

The State of Minnesota has long demonstrated its appreciation for and commitment to preserving the values of our wetland resources. Our wetlands comprise a diversity of wetland types, from the prairie potholes of the southwest to the vast peatlands and coniferous-forested wetlands in the north, to the rich floodplain forests and riverine wetland complexes along the Upper Mississippi River. In fact, Minnesota has more wetlands than any other states except Alaska and Florida, approximately 10.6 million acres. Despite this relative abundance, Minnesota's current wetland acreage is estimated to be about half of what it was prior io European settlement (Anderson and Craig, 1984), The loss of wetlands has been overwhelmingly concentrated in the southern and western parts of the state, where agricultural land use predominates. Some counties in these areas have lost up to 99% of their original wetland acreage (Anderson and Craig, 1984). Our remaining wetlands are critically important for maintaining the physical, chemical and biological integrity of our surface and ground water resources here in the "Land of 10,000 Lakes". And, given our location as the headwaters for three continental watersheds, our wetlands also play an important role in maintaining the integrity of waters in other states downstream and in Canada.

Minnesotans have a relatively long history of conservation and protection of our water resources. Our first law aimed at regulating impacts to wetlands was passed in 1937, establishing that some wetlands provided public benefits and could not be drained without a permit. We recently celebratedthe 50thanniversary of the "Save the Wetlands" Program, which was the precursor to our wildlife management area acquisition efforts. There have been many wetland policy and program initiatives in the interim, culminating in 1991 with the passage of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, which established that it is in the public interest to:

1) achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality and biological diversity of Minnesota's existing wetlands, and to 2) increase the quantity, quality and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by restoring or enhancing diminished or drained wetlands.

Today, wetland regulation and management in Minnesota is delivered through a carefully crafted blend of federal, state and local programs. As a state with an abundance of wetlands

DNR Information: 651-296-6157 1-888-646-6367 TTY:651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929

An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper Containinga Who Values Diversity a Minimumof 10% Post-Consumer Waste and having long experience in regulating and managing these resources, we are pleased to provide these comments on the proposed rulemaking. These comments are a collaborative effort of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources.

Our comments are organized around specific issues identified in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

Issue No. 1: Whether the regulations should define ”isolated waters,“ and if so, what factors should be considered in determining whether a water is or is not isolated for jurisdictional purposes?

Comments: We do not believe the term “isolated waters” can be defined in a practical manner for waters in Minnesota. In a purely hydrological sense, very few if any waters are truly isolated. Surface connectivity is dynamic (Liebowitz and Vining, 2003). Water bodies lacking distinct surface water connections often interact with groundwater (Winter and Rosenberry, 1995). Even waters that don’t have apparent surface or ground water connections participate in the hydrologic cycle through evapotranspiration. With more than 10,000 lakes, unpredictableweather patterns including flooding and drought, and complex hydrogeologic features, it is very difficult for us to consider and even more difficult to prove that any of our surface waters are truly isolated. Complicating matters further, the status of a particular water body may change over time as a result of changing climate and altered watersheds.

As an alternative, we recommend that the Corps and EPA develop permanent guidance on which waters may be determined to be non-jurisdictional in light of the SWANCC case. In our view, this guidance would be similar to the Joint Memorandum provided as Appendix A of the ANPRM, with the following additions and clarifications:

P The SWANCC case did not invalidate the provisions of 33 CFR 328.3(a). Corps and EPA staff should not be required to seek Headquartersapproval to assert jurisdiction based on any of those provisions, as long as the jurisdiction does not rest solely on use of the water by migratory birds.

k The guidance should clarify that “adjacent wetlands’’ are to be determined using hydrologic criteria, not geographic proximity. Wetlands that influence the chemical, physical or biological condition of any of the waters listed in 33 CFR 328.3(a)(1-6), either through surface or groundwater connections, should be consideredjurisdictional.

k “Tributaries” to waters listed in 33 CFR 328.3(a)(1-4) should be clearly identified as including temporary, intermittent and ephemeral streams, as well as public and private drainage systems. These upper stream reaches (and the wetlands adjacent thereto) are critical for maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the downstream, traditionally navigable reaches of the nation’s waters.

Under this guidance, only a small subset of waters in Minnesota is likely to be determined non­ jurisdictional. Therefore, for Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory purposes we believe it would be appropriate to presume that a given water body is jurisdictional unless a permit applicant can demonstrate otherwise. The existing wetland regulations and programs in Minnesota have been developed with a clear understanding of which wetlands fall under CWA jurisdiction. A presumption of Federaljurisdiction will help maintain as much clarity as possible and will allow us to continue to efficiently implement state and local level programs.

-2- Issue No. 2: “Whether, and, if so, under what circumstances, the factors listed in 33 CFR 328,3(a)(3)(i)-(iii) (Le., use of the water by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes, the presence of fish or shellfish that could be taken and sold in interstate commerce, the use of the water for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce) or any other factors provide a basis for determining CWA jurisdiction over isolated,.intrastate, non-navigablewaters?”

Comments: All of the factors listed above provide a solid basis for asserting CWA jurisdiction over many isolatedwetlands in Minnesota:

Waters which are or could be used bv interstate or foreinn travelers for recreational or other purposes. [33 CFR 328.3(a)(3)(i)]. Minnesota is a nationally and internationally recognized destination for outdoor recreational activitv. larnelv due to our water resources (see sidebar). Over $2.7 billion were spent in Minnesotaon ildiife­ related recreation in 2001 (U.S. Dept. Interior 2002). MinnesotaWater Resources and A portion of these expenditures was by 139,000 Tourism non-residents who participated in wildlife watching and specifically visited marshes, wetlands and Minnesota has: swamps (U.S. Dept. Interior 2002). A significant > 11,842 lakes over 10 acres amount of wildlife watching activity involves bird > 10.6 million acres of wetlands watching, much of which is focused on wetland > 69,200 miles of rivers and habitats (see attached brochure on the “Pine to streams Prairie Birding Trail”). In addition, approximately > 589 miles of Wild and Scenic 3,900 non-residents hunted waterfowl in Minnesota Rivers in 2001 (Dexter 2002). Although there is no way > 3.8 million acres available for to determine how much wildlife watching or fishing waterfowl hunting occurs on isolatedwetlands, > 208,000 miles of shoreline there can be no doubt that such wetlands in > 1,967 resorts, campgrounds Minnesota are in fact used by interstatetravelers and motels located on lakes for recreation. Water resources are an important or rivers part of Minnesota’s economy and generate large amounts of revenue for the State. Should rule changes result in the loss (number and type) of water bodies having Clean Water Act protection, water-based activities on lakes, rivers, streams, intermittent streams, isolated and adjacent wetlands could be diminished and the related revenue could decline.

Waters from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreinn commerce. [33 CFR 328.3(a)(3)(ii)]. Thousands of wetland basins in Minnesota are used for commercially raising and harvesting walleyes, suckers and minnows. Walleyes are stocked, raised and harvested from wetland basins for export to other states for stocking and for food. Suckers and minnows are harvestedfrom wetlands and sold as baitfish. Over 50 percent of the bailfish harvested in Minnesota are exported to other states (R. Johannes, MnDNR Div. Fisheries, pers. comm.). A 1992 study determined that the commercial baitfish industry in Minnesota had a total estimated economic value of $45 million at that time (Meronek 1994). The best wetlands for commercially raising fish, particularly stocked populations, are isolated wetlands because escapes are minimized and the likelihood of predation by other fish is reduced.

Waters which are used or could be used for industrial purpose bv industries in interstate commerce. [33 CFR 328.3(a)(3)(iii)]. Many water bodies in Minnesota, including isolated waters, are used for industries involved in interstatecommerce. Examples include peat

-3- harvesting, wild rice production, propagation and harvest of aquatic vegetation (for sale for wetland and shoreland restorations), irrigation of crops, and use of the water for washing mined aggregate resources.

It‘s clear that many isolated wetlands in Minnesota meet the criteria in 33 CFR(a)(3)(i)-(iii) for designation as waters of the U.S. Under what circumstances should these criteria be applied to assert jurisdiction? As far as use of wetlands by interstate or foreign travelers for recreation, it could be argued that nearly all wetlands could be so utilized, which would meet the jurisdictional criteria. At a minimum, we believe that officially designated public recreation, hunting or nature areas constitute prima facie evidence of recreational use, including by interstate and foreign travelers, and that all wetlands lying wholly or partially within such areas should fall under CWA jurisdiction. Similarly, all waters in Minnesota with a history of leasing for hunting purposes should be included in this categow. Other wetlands may also meet this criterion and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Regarding wetlands in which fish are raised for interstate commerce, some wetlands used for this purpose are readily identifiable from records maintained by the DNR, Division of Fisheries. Other wetlands used for commercially raising fish can be identified by contacting licensed minnow dealers. All isolated wetlands that have been previously used for this purpose should continue to be regulated under the CWA.

Issue No. 3: “One of the purposes of the ANPRM is to solicit additional information, data, or studies addressing the extent of resource impacts to isolated, intrastate, non­ navigable waters”

Comments: The Minnesota Board of Water and Map of Minnesota Ecaregions based on USEPA Omernik Map Soil Resources (BWSR) conducted a geographic information system (GIS) analysis of wetlands mapped in Minnesota by the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) to assess potential changes in CWA jurisdiction resulting from the SWANCC decision (Attachment A). Statewide, we project that under a best-case scenario, 88% of mapped wetlands in Minnesotawould continue to fall under CWA jurisdiction (Table 1). However, the extent of post-SWANCC CWA jurisdiction varied widely among ecoregions, from a low of 54% (Western Cornbelt Plains) to a high of 98% (Northern Minnesota Peatlands) (Fig. 1). Using worst-case assumptions, our analysis projects that statewide CWA jurisdiction could be limited to only 8% of mapped wetlands for the Northern Glaciated Plains ecoregion. Other ecoregions would not be as severely affected, although the statewide post- SWANCC jurisdiction is projected to cover only 77% of mapped wetlands under this scenario (Table I).For additional details on the protocol Figure 1. Minnesota ecoregions. and methods used for our analysis and the complete findings, see Attachment A (also available on-line at: httD://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/swancc/index.html).

-4- Best Case Worsf Case Broadest post-SWANCC Narrowest post-SWANCC jurisdiction; broadest jurisdiction; narrowest interpretation of adjacent interpretation of adjacent connectivity; intermittent connectivity, only perennial and perennial tributaries tributaries CWA-regulated Minnesota Ecoregions CWA-regulated DriftlessArea -3% -7% Red River Valley -32% -60% Northern Glaciated Plains -39% -92% Northern Minn. Peatlands -2% -4% North Central Hardwood Forest -32% -63% Western Cornbelt Plains -46% -72% Northern Lakes and Forest -8% -15% Total for Minnesota -12% -23%

The ecoregions projected to incur the greatest loss of CWA jurisdiction are the regions of our state with the greatest historic wetland losses, including the Prairie Pothole Region of Minnesota. These areas cannot afford to lose additional wetlands if the integrity of the nation's waters is to be maintained and restored. While the Swampbuster provisions of the Federal Farm Bill offer some protection at the moment, wetlands in these areas of Minnesota are least protected by state regulations due to various agricultural exemptions (see Issue No. 5).

Issue No. 4: The ANPRM seeks information regarding the functions and values of wetlands and other waters that may be affected by the issues discussed in this ANPRM.

Comments: An extensive body of literature exists on the functions and values of wetlands in general, with which the Corps and EPA are well acquainted (see Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000 for a review). Of specific interest for the issue at hand is the functions and values associated with isolated, intrastate, non-navigable waters that may no longer fall under Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Tiner et at. (2002) presents a good general assessment of the functions and values of isolated wetlands. Below is an analysis of the benefits associated with isolated wetlands in Minnesota. Following that is an analysis of the functions and values of temporary or ephemeral streams.

Functions and Values of IsolatedWetlands in Minnesota:

Maintenance of Water Quality. Wetlands are known to remove a variety of pollutants through various physical, chemical and biological mechanisms (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). Numerous studies have demonstrated that surface water discharged from wetlands exhibits higher water quality than the water entering the wetland, although exceptions exist (Mitsch et al., 2000). A particularly relevant point regarding isolated wetlands is that they rarely discharge surface water at all. For most precipitation events, all incoming water is held, providing maximum opportunity for sequestration or processing of sediment, nutrients and other pollutants. In a study conducted in Ramsey County, Minnesota, Brown (1988) found that wetlands that had been channelized to improve the flow of water through the wetland exhibited a reduced capacity to retain sediment loads, thus contributing to downstream water quality problems. Paradoxically, the very wetlands that are of highest value in protecting downstream water quality are those at risk of being removed from Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

Stormwater/Floodwater Retention. Again, the concept of an isolated wetland is one that is not connected to the surrounding surface water system. Therefore, these wetlands are of the highest value in storing runoff and thereby reducing flood peaks. This is corroborated by a hydrologic modeling study of the Redwood River basin in southwest Minnesota, which examined several alternatives for reducing peak discharges on the river. The model indicated that restoring all of the depressional wetlands in the watershed would reduce peak discharge by 15 percent for a 5-year precipitation event. If half of those wetlands were considered to be landlocked (no outlet), peak discharge was reduced by 21 percent (Cooper 1994). fish and Wildlife Habitat. Optimal breeding habitat for many species of Minnesota amphibians consists of small, isolated wetlands, commonly known as vernal pools. These wetlands provide high quality breeding habitat because they are free of fish, which prey on amphibian eggs and larvae (Lannoo 1998). The reason they remain fish-free is that they frequently become dry late in the growing season and they are isolatedfrom other surface waters, preventing re­ colonization by fish. Thus, the fact that they are isolated is a critical factor for amphibian habitat quality. See also Semlitsch and Bodie (1998) for additional documentation of the importance of isolated wetlands for maintaining amphibian populations. Isolated wetlands are also important during pair formation for breeding waterfowl (Batt, et al. 1989). While complete hydrologic isolation is not critical to this habitat aspect, many of the small prairie potholes that are important in this regard are in fact hydrologically isolated and may be affected by any reduction in Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Further losses of prairie pothole wetlands could have significant adverse consequences for NorthAmerican waterfowl populations (Petrie et al. 2001) and their associated recreational/economicvalues. Over $99 million was spent on migratory bird hunting in Minnesota in 2001 (U.S. Dept. Interior 2002).

Economic Benefits. Isolated wetlands in Minnesota are frequently used for rearing walleye for stocking and for rearing and harvesting baitfish. Isolation from other surface waters is an important consideration in preventing escapes. Recreationalfishing in Minnesota is a $ 1.3 billion dollar industry (U.S. Dept. Interior 2002). See also our comments under Issue No. 2.

Functions and Values of Temporaw, EDhemeral Streams and Tributaries: Although most post- SWANCC court cases have affirmed CWA jurisdiction over tributaries to navigable waters (including intermittent streams), the SWANCC case has raised questions concerning the upstream extent of CWA jurisdiction. Headwater streams (which we are considering to include temporary, intermittent or ephemeral streams) are inseparable components of the larger hydrologic system and are critical for maintaining the overall integrity of the downstream aquatic environment (Meyer and Wallace 2001; Vannote et al. 1980). The upper reaches of streams provide habitat for spawning fish, produce macroinvertebrates,and export particulate matter that helps drive nutrient cycling in downstream reaches (Zale et al. 1989). Studies have also demonstratedthat small streams are more efficient at removing nitrogenfrom water than large streams, thus playing a critical role in maintaining water quality (Alexander et al. 2000; Peterson et al. 2001).

-6- headwater streams. From: Meyer and Wallace, 2001. Alteration Consequence Loss of hyrdologic retention capacity Increasedfrequency and intensity of flooding downstream and lower base flows Increaseddownstream channel Increasedsediment transport and reduced erosion habitat quality Reduced retention of sediments Excess sedimentation downstream Reduced retention and Increasednutrient and contaminant loading to transformation of nutrients and downstream ecosystems contaminants Reduced retention and mineralization Increasedloading downstream of organic matter Reduced processing of allochthonous Reduced supply of fine particulate organic inputs matter to downstream food webs Reduced secondary production in Less drift supplied to food webs downstream headwaters and less emergence production subsidizing riparian food webs Loss of unique habitats Increasedextinction vulnerability of aquatic species (invertebrates, amphibians, fishes) Altered thermal regime Altered growth and reproduction in aquatic insects and fishes Loss of thermal refuges and nursery Increasedmortality of fishes

Issue No. 5: Information and data are sought on the availability and effectiveness of other Federal or State programsfor the protection of aquatic resources and practical experience with their implementation.

Comments: Minnesota has a variety of state and local programs regulating impacts to aquatic resources. In addition, certain other Federal programs are active in Minnesota, such as the conservation provisions of the Federal Farm Bill. For a description of programs in Minnesota fmused primarily on wetlands, see Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (2001) (;enclosed). Together, these programs cover most of the streams, lakes and wetlands in Minnesota. However, there are some important exceptions regardingwetlands. The state's primary wetland regulatory program, the Minnesota Wetland ConservationAct, was crafted based on Federaljurisdiction for all waters and wetlands. It contains several exemptions, which have the effect of leaving some wetlands regulated solely by Federal programs, primarily Section 404 and Swampbuster. Unfortunately,these wetlands will often be the same wetlands in danger of losing Federal jurisdiction - small, isolated wetlands. Furthermore, they are generally located within regions of the state with a history of greatest wetland loss.

We do not view the Swampbuster provisions of the Federal Farm Bill to fully substitute for CWA jurisdiction. While Swampbuster is undoubtedly responsible for protecting thousands of acres of wetlands in Minnesota, it is not a regulatory program and therefore has some inherent limitations. For one, it only applies to landownersthat voluntarily participate in Federal farm programs. There are questions about the permanency of this program, considering that it is a component of the Federal Farm Bill, which requires periodic reauthorization. The

-7- Swampbuster program utilizes different wetland identificationand delineation methods than the CWA and provides less comprehensive protection than the CWA. For example, there are several tract or activity designations under Swampbuster that allow unmitigatedwetland losses, e.g., converted wetland - non-agricultural; converted wetland - technical error.

Our experience with the implementation of the various wetland programs in Minnesota is that a Federal-State-Local partnership is optimal in terms of achieving a high level of wetland protection, efficient use of personnel, and high-quality public service. Beginning in 1984, Minnesota state and local agencies have cooperated with the St. Paul District of the Corps of Engineers to develop a number of general permits and letters-of-permission based on interagency partnerships and complementaryjurisdictions. Any significant change in CWA jurisdiction will jeopardize these institutional arrangements and make it more difficult to achieve our mutually desired wetland conservation and protectiongoals.

Issue No. 6: Data and comments are sought from State and local agencies on the effect of no longer asserting jurisdiction over some of the waters (and discharges to those waters) in a watershed on the implementationof Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and attainment of water quality standards.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Svstem (NPDES) Point Source Discharges

The major mechanism through which the State of Minnesota protects its surface waters is by implementing programs delegated to us in Sections 303 (water quality standards) and 402 (NPDES permitting program) of the CWA.

Through these programs, we have established water quality standards and issued permits to 1,100 facilities that discharge into various lakes, rivers, intermittent streams, ditches, and wetlands. We value our ability to identify and select the water resources we deem worthy of protection using broad federal authority as well as our own state law. Experience has shown us that regulating discharges to these waters has been effective in maintaining and improving the quality of our water and, in doing so, enhancing the quality of life for our citizens.

Generally speaking, we are concerned that the SWANCC decision representsthe beginning of a trend through which an increasing number and type of surface waters will no longer be afforded CWA protection. Authority delegated to the state to identify and select the water resources in Minnesota that our experience has demonstrated are worthy of protection could be compromised.

Phase II Stormwater Program

Minnesota’s burgeoning NPDES Phase II stormwater program is both a prime and timely example of the use and importance of delegated CWA authority. We anticipate that 200+ Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), 5,000+construction, and 2,000+ new industrial NPDES Phase II stormwater permits will be issued in Minnesota this coming year

During the development of these draft permits, we received numerous comments and complaints about our proposed permit requirements because they were considered too restrictive, specifically in our intention to provide broad protection for “Waters of the State”. Although we cannot say precisely how many industries, municipalities, or construction projects subject to Phase I1 stormwater permits discharge into waters that could be classified as “isolated” in the SWANCC context, the number will be considerable.

-8- We do know that, in the water-rich state of Minnesota, virtually every MS4 and many of the industries and construction projects discharge to wetlands or small lakes. Many of these waters often do not have visible natural connections to a system of potentially navigable watercourses. The state relies on its delegated federal authority and mandate to issue NPDES permits to protect many of these waters and to serve as the foundation of our own laws that guarantee similar protection. Thus, the State’s ability to protect these waters is fundamentally dependent upon a solid foundation provided by federal law.

We are concerned that the comments and complaints we have received on our draft stormwater permits are the first reflection of the trend established in SWANCC, in that there is a desire to reduce the number and type of receiving waters under protection. As a headwater state, what Minnesota does affects those downstream as much as those who live here, and although states often have the authority to promulgate more stringent environmental requirements than the federal government, this is not easily accomplished in a piecemeal fashion.

Wastewater Infrastructure

Minnesota also has a huge investment in wastewater treatment facilities WF)that protect our waters. Since the early 1970’s, we estimate Federal and State financial assistance at about $2.4 billion dollars for construction and improvementsto WWTFs. This figure does not include local contributions. The value of this investment, in terms of public health and the environment cannot be underestimated. If certain waters are no longer protected under the CWA, the state’s regulatory authority could be compromised and some WWTFs may not be operated and maintained in a manner consistent with protecting public health and the environment.

Impacts could also be felt with future WWTF infrastructurefunding needs. Can we be assured that federal financial assistance will remain available for our State Wastewater Revolving Fund if the construction projects it funds are discharging to waters no longer regulated under the CWA? We have a current estimated statewide need of about $1.5 billion dollars based on requests for financial assistance through the State Wastewater Revolving Fund. In the absence of Federal assistance, we simply cannot meet these needs.

Wetland Monitoring

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s wetland monitoring program has heretofore focused on depressional wetlands, many of which would be considered “isolated” using US EPNUS ACOE guidance. Since these wetland monitoring efforts are supported in large measure by federal funding, isolated wetlands may no longer be eligible for data collection using federal funding. Many depressional wetland connections vary temporally (Leibowitz and Vining, 2003). These yearly and even seasonal variations are part of the reason why a determination of “‘jsolated”can often be difficult to make. This would add administrative cost to our tponitoring program by creating the need to determine which basins we can include in the monitoring efforts and which basins potentially may need to be excluded.

Ih general, the majority (roughly 60%) of our higher quality reference sites could potentially be isolated depressions because they do not have readily discernible surface connections to other waters. We have also sampled many wetlands - particularly in urban areas -which do have readily discernable connections to other surface waters often due to constructed connections

-9- made via drainage and stormwater flow systems. Because pollutant and hydrologic loading rates are typically higher in the non-isolated wetlands their biological integrity is typically compromised, often to great extent in comparison to similar size and classification type of isolated wetlands. Therefore, if isolated wetlands are not included in our pool of reference sites this would result in development of inappropriately low “reference conditions” for depressional wetlands.

Many authors have reported on the importance of wetland proximity to other wetlands for maintenance of biological diversity. Yet proximity does not necessarily mean “connected”. Excluding truly isolated wetlands from our sampling efforts would result in incomplete information about the functioning and integrity of the wetlands and watersheds that are being monitored.

Total Maximum Dailv Loads (TMDLs)

A major water quality related subject for Minnesota is Total Maximum Daily Loads and impaired waters. Although we have not TMDL-listed any waters at this time that might be considered “isolated” in the SWANCC context, we may do so in the future. If these waters are excluded from CWA protection this may inhibit our ability not only to list them but to access federal funding to restore them. Moreover, if our understanding of ground water/surface water interactions changes in the future, we may discover that waters we considered to be “isolated” actually are not, and we may have inadvertently restricted our ability to restore impaired waters.

Issue No. 7: Whether any other revisions are needed to the existing regulations on which waters are jurisdictional under the CWA.

Response: The Supreme Court decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) was very specific and limited in scope: it found that the use of waters by migratory birds was not sufficient, in and of itself, to assert CWA jurisdiction on those waters. The decision did not bear on any of the other criteria currently used to define “waters of the U.S.”. Therefore, we see no compelling reason to revise the regulations beyond that which is necessary to accommodate the SWANCC decision. As stated previously, Minnesota’s existing system of wetland regulations and programs was developed with an underpinning of broad Federaljurisdiction. Any significant changes to that scenario will create regulatory uncertainty in the short term and will require substantial revision of our regulations and programs. Therefore, we recommend that the Corps and EPA pursue only limited revision of the federal regulations.

Summary

A GIs-based analysis of potential post-SWANCC regulatory scenarios reveals that the extent of Federal CWA regulation could be significantly reduced in areas of Minnesota that can least afford to lose more of their wetland resources.

We recommend that the Corps and EPA revise the federal regulations to reflect a reading of the SWANCC decision that is limited to Section 404 and acknowledges the unusual aspects of the site that generated this case law.

We do not believe the term “isolated waters” can be defined in a practical manner for waters in Minnesota and that itwould be appropriate to presume that a given water body

- 10- is jurisdictional unless a permit applicant can demonstrate otherwise. Although the Supreme Court has clearly indicated that the mere use of a water by migratory birds is not sufficient to assert Federal jurisdiction, there are many other criteria in 33 CFR Part 328 that can confer CWA jurisdiction over most isolated, non-navigable, intra-state waters. A science-based approach to the regulations will acknowledge that nearly all wetlands are integral parts of the hydrologic system. Excluding a substantial subset of the nation's waters from CWA jurisdiction will make it nearly impossible to achieve the overall goals of the Act.

It's our belief that broad Federal jurisdiction provides a necessary baseline from which states can craft their own programs to better meet local needs and conditions. Our regulations and programs for water resource protection in Minnesota have been developed over many years based on the pre-SWANCC extent of CWA jurisdiction. We rely on a partnership of Federal, state and local programs and personnel to achieve a high level of wetland protection with maximum efficiency. Any significant reduction in Federaljurisdiction will disrupt this system, leading to greater loss or degradation of our state's and the nation's waters and/or increased costs to the State of Minnesota and our local governments at a time when we can least afford it.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments in advance of your rulemaking. We lpok forward to reviewing the draft rule. If you have questions regarding these comments, please communicate with these designated agency contacts:

Mn Dept. Natural Resources: Doug Norris, 651-296-0779, [email protected] Mn. PollutionControl Agency: David L. Johnson, 651-296-6041, David.L.Johnson@,i213ca.state.mn.us Mn. Bd. of Water and Soil Resources: Tom Mings, 651-284-4153, [email protected]

Mn. Pollution Control Agency

iJ Ronald Harnack, Executive Director Mn. Bd. Water and Soil Resources

Attachments: BWSR GIS Analysis Pine to Prairie Birding Trail booklet 1990/2000MinnesotaWetland Report

C: Gov. Tim Pawlenty Mn. Congressional Delegation St. Paul District Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington Field Office USEPA - Region 5 HQ

- 11 - Literature Cited

Alexander, R.B., R.A. Smith and G.E. Schwarz. 2000. Effect of steam channel size on the delivery of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758-761.

Anderson, J.P. and W.J. Craig. 1984. Growing energy crops on Minnesota's wetlands: the land use perspective. University of Minnesota Center for Urban and RegionalAffairs, Publ. CURA 84-3. 95 pp.

Batt, B.D.J., M.G. Anderson, C.D. Anderson, F.D. Caswell. 1989. The use of prairie potholes by North American ducks. In Northern Prairie Wetlands, A.G. Van Der Valk, ed. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. pp. 204- 227.

Brown, R.G. 1988. Effects of wetland channelization on runoff and loading. Wetlands 8:123­ 133.

Cooper, P. 1994. Wetland impacts on flooding. Paper presented at the University of Minnesota Water Resources Conference, Oct. 26, 1994., St. Paul.

Dexter, M.H., editor. 2002. Status of wildlife populations, fall 2002. Unpublished Report, Division of Wildlife, Minn. Dept. Nat. Res., St. Paul, 176 pp.

Lannoo, M.J. 1998. Amphibian conservation and wetland management in the midwest: a catch 22 for the cricket frog. In Status and Conservation of Midwestern Amphibians, M.J. Lannoo, ed. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City. Pp 331-339.

Liebowitz, S.G. and K.C. Vining. 2003. Temporal connectivity in a prairie pothole complex. Wetlands 23:13-25.

Meronek, T. G. 1994. Status of the bait industry in the north central region of the Unitedstates. M. S. Thesis, Univ. of Wis. Stevens Point, WI. 278p.

Meyer, J.L. and J.B. Wallace. 2001. Lost linkages and lotic ecology: rediscovering small streams. In Ecology: Achievement and Challenge: the 41'' Symposium of the British Ecological Society. Blackwell Science, Oxford, England. pp. 295-317.

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. 2001. 1999/2000 MinnesotaWetland Report. St. Paul.

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, 3'' Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. 920 pp.

Mitsch, W.J., A. Horne, and R.W. Nairn. Eds. 2000. Nitrogen and phosphorous retention in wetlands. Special Issue of Ecological Engineering 14:l - 206.

Peterson, B.J., W.M. Wollheim, P.J. Mulholland, J.R. Webster, J.L. Meyer, J.L. Tank, E. Marti, W.B. Bowden, H. M. Valett, A.E. Hershey,W.H. McDowell,W.K. Dodds, S.K. Hamilton, S. Gregory, D.D. Morral. 2001. Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292:86-90.

Petrie, M., J.P. Rochon, T. Gildo, R. Pederson,T. Moorman. 2001. The SWANCC Decision: Implications for Wetlands and Waterfowl. Ducks Unlimited Final Report. 54 pp. - 12- Semlitsch, R.D. and J.R. Bodie. 1998. Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conservation Biology 12:1 129-1133.

Tiner, R.W., H.C. Bergquist, G.P. DeAlissio and M.J. Starr. 2002. Geographically Isolated Wetlands: A Preliminary Assessment of their Characteristics and Status in Selected Areas of the United States. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region, Hadley, MA.

U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and US. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Aquat. Sci. 37:130-137.

Winter, T.C. and D.O. Rosenberry. 1995. The interaction of groundwater with prairie pothole wetlands in the Cottonwood Lake Area, East-Central North Dakota, 1979-1990. Wetlands 151193-211.

Zale, A.V., D.M. Leslie, Jr. W.L. Fisher and S.G. Merrifield. 1989. The physicochemistry,flora and fauna of intermittent prairie streams: a review of the literature. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biol. Rep. 89(5). 44pp. Figure 1. Preliminary assessment of the percentage of Minnesota wetland area retaining federal jurisdiction after SWANCC decision to estimate direct connectivity to selected watercourses Figure 2. Preliminary assessment of the percentage of Minnesota wetland area retaining federal jurisdiction after SWANCC decision within a 25-Meter buffer to estimate adjacent connectivity to selected watercourses

Based on NationalWenards lnventwy mapping fw Minnesotacompleted 1994. March 26,2003 Figure 3. Preliminary assessment of the percentage of Minnesota wetland area retaining federal jurisdiction after SWANCC decision within a %-Meter buffer to estimate adjacent connectivity to selected watercourses

March 26,2003 Based on Naticmal Wetlands Inventory mapping for Minnesota completed 1534. Figure 4. Preliminary assessment of the percentage of Minnesota wetland area retaining federal jurisdiction after SWANCC decision within a 100-Meter buffer to estimate adjacent connectivity to selected watercourses

d

Preliminary assessment of geographic scope of Federal wetland regulatory changes in Minnesota based on January 10,2003post- SWANCC guidance and January 15,2003 ANPRM Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, March 27,2003

On January 9, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision, Solid WasteAgency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (SWANCC) that limits the scope of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory permitting program (Section 404 of the CWA) as applied to “isolated” waters. In the aftermath of the SWANCC decision, the Corps was forced to continue making regulatory decisions for individual projects without program- wide policy on the issues raised by SWANCC to guide them. On January 10,2003, the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued guidance the regulation of isolated wetlands and also summarized pre- and post-SWANCC court decisions on a number of ancillary regulatory issues raised by the SWANCC decision. The January 10, 2003, post-SWANCC guidance was made public as part of an Advanced Notice of Preliminary Rule-Making (ANPRM) on January 15,2003, (FR 68(10) 1991-1998), which also solicited comments on changes to federal jurisdiction that extended beyond just revisiting the issue of isolated wetlands as required by the SWANCC decision.

In SWANCC, the Court invalidated use of the “Migratory Bird Rule” as the sole basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over non-navigable, isolated, and intrastate waters/wetlands. Left unclear was whether other tests could be applied to assert jurisdiction over these waterdwetlands. The Corps and EPA continue to evaluate other tests in view of the decision, with project-by-project decisions to regulate isolated waters undergoing lengthy review. The courts SWANCC decision did affirm that navigable waters and their tributaries, plus wetlands adjacent to either, are regulated under the Clean Water Act.

Working definitions and use of terms like “isolated,” “navigable,” “adjacent,” and “tributary” have been implemented by the Corps as they have made post-SWANCC regulatory decisions ~ these post-SWANCC regulatory decisions have now undergone a cycle of test cases in the courts, which has been summarized in the ANPRM. The working definitions and recent guidance on regulating isolated wetlands are steps in a rule-making process that the federal government expects to lead to new regulations. Judging from the large volume of comments already received by the federal government on the preliminary phase of this process (in excess of 40,000), it is unlikely that a final federal rule is close at hand.

Currently, many non-navigable and intrastate waters/wetlands are still within Clean Water Act jurisdiction because they are adjacent to navigable waters (e.g., regulated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act), or a tributary to navigable waters. However, the extent of adjacent connectivity was not addressed by the court, nor was the nature of the connection (geographic or hydrologic). We are not aware of court challenges to federal jurisdiction that specifically address adjacent connectivity. The EPA and Corps’ Advanced Notice of Preliminary Rule Making in the January 15, 2003,

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Page 1of 8 Federal Register also raised the issue of whether all tributaries to navigable waters should be regulated by the CWA. The January 10,2003, guidance notes that there have been no successful challenges to federal regulation of tributary waters, whether intermittent, ephemeral, or perennial in flow.

By decreasing the number of water and wetland areas subject to federal regulation, the post-SWANCC guidance also narrows the areas and activities subject to Clean Water Act Section 40 1 water quality programs, which require state certification for federally permitted activities. The post-SWANCC guidance also partially narrows the areas and activities subject to State Coastal Zone Management consistency review and it partially limits the areas and activities addressed by State 404 “assumption” programs and by State Programmatic Permits. Other state-administered programs may also be limited in geographic scope - the ANPRM raised this issue and solicited comments on whether the scope of other parts of the CWA should be limited in the same way that Section 404 jurisdiction is limited by the SWANCC decision. The SWANCC decision affirmed the “primary responsibilities and rights of the States” or over land and waters and shifted more of the economic burden for regulating wetlands to states and local governments. According to some states, this Supreme Court decision removed nearly 80 percent of their wetlands from EPA’s and the Corps’ jurisdiction.

The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and DNR Public Waters (PW) Program in concept provide a “seamless coverage” for regulation of all wetlands in Minnesota, except for those on federal or tribally owned land. However, there are some gaps exposed by SWANCC in that some activities exempt from state regulations’ were protected only by federal regulation and are now without any regulatory controls for non-navigable, intrastate, or isolated wetlands. These exposures are not yet quantified, but the reality is that fewer wetlands will be regulated by the USACOE in the prairie pothole/agricultural area of the state (where there are also fewer wetlands remaining on the landscape) and less change will occur in the wetland abundant areas of the state (northeast quadrant) since many of those wetlands are not isolated and many are on government-owned land.

In addition to soliciting comments on the issue of jurisdiction over isolated wetlands, the ANPRM requests comments on the possibility of reducing CWA jurisdiction over surface watercourses to some subset of waters currently regulated, e.g., regulating only perennial watercourses. Restricting CWA jurisdiction to subset of tributaries to navigable waters, such as deregulation of intermittent and ephemeral watercourses, could mean significant change in the scope of federal regulation under the CWA in the drier areas of the great plains and western U.S. where annual precipitation is relatively low and surface drainage areas required to support perennial flows are quite large.

This study is a preliminary assessment of changes in Minnesota federal jurisdiction resulting form the January 10, 2003, guidance on isolated wetlands and also an assessment of the additional losses of federal jurisdiction that could occur if the extent of CWA jurisdiction over tributary watercourses was also reduced.

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Page 2 of 8 Methodologv

In order to evaluate the potential impact of the SWANCC decision, the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources used a combination of techniques recommended by the Association of State Wetland Managers, Ducks Unlimited, and Indiana’s Department of Environmental Management. Our goal was to summarize the acreage of National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapped wetlands that might be considered “adjacent” to “navigable” watercourses by the Corps using varying buffer distances from streams or other navigable waters.

Our analysis was conducted using a stratified random sample of 3 1 USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles throughout the state. Because of the wide geologic and geographic variation within Minnesota, these sample quads were selected proportionally from seven distinct ecoregions. A 12.2-meter error buffer was used on the DNR 24K stream layer to reflect the uncertainty of horizontal positional accuracy in this dataset. The error buffered stream network was then used to select all touching NWI polygons in the quad. Using this initial selection, an iterative process of 12.2-meter error buffering of selected wetlands was undertaken until no more additional wetland polygons could be selected. We considered this final selection of wetlands to be directly connected to the stream network.

The combination of watercourse selection and directly connected wetland polygons was used as the starting point for estimating adjacent wetlands. The buffer widths chosen for analysis were 25 meters, 50 meters, and 100 meters. Wetland polygons within the various buffers were assumed to be regulated under Section 404 for the various scenarios, while areas outside the buffer were assumed to be isolated and therefore not regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. Two separate analyses were made to assess potential changes in jurisdiction based on stream water regime, with the buffer widths described above around 1) all streams mapped (perennial and intermittent), and 2) only streams mapped as perennial.

The wetland layer used in this analysis was National Wetland Inventory (NWI). The stream layer was digitized by the Minnesota Department of Natural resources (MDNR) and based on streams mapped by the United States Geological Survey on 7.5’-minute topographic quadrangle maps. Thirty-one quadrangles throughout the state were sampled, with sample size based on staff time available to do the analysis. The total area of the state sampled within the 3 1 quads was approximately 1,030,022 acres (1,609 square miles).

Results Table 1 contains the results of the GIS analysis by ecoregion, buffer width, and watercourse hydrology. Table 2 shows the estimated percent of wetlands mapped that would no longer be under federal regulatory control under: a) the current regulatory (best-case) scenario where both intermittent and perennial are typically regulated under the CWA and there is a broad interpretation of what wetlands are regulated as adjacent; and b) a worst-case scenario where the federal government would regulate as tributaries only the streams and ditches with perennial flows and any wetlands regulated as adjacent

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Page 3 of 8 would have to be directly-connected to the stream. Figures 1,2, 3, and 4 show estimated percentage of wetlands in each ecoregion that would remain under CWA jurisdiction under current post-SWANCC guidance, based on a) current regulatory scenario where both intermittent and perennial are typically regulated under the CWA, and b) a revised scenario of regulating only perennial streams tributaries. A discussion of the results by ecoregion follows.

In the driftless area ecoregion of southeastern Minnesota (n=2), most wetlands are closely associated with perennial streams, rivers or ditches. Only 4.5% of the area sampled in this ecoregion was mapped as wetland by the NWI. We estimate that if assuming 404 jurisdiction over intermittent and perennial streams and ditches, 94.3% of the wetlands sampled would be regulated as adjacent using buffer widths of 0 meters beyond watercourses and directly-connected wetlands, 95.2% with 25-meter buffers, 96.8% with 50-meter buffers, and 97.1% with 100-meter buffers.

We estimate that if assuming 404 jurisdiction over only perennial streams, 93.0% of the wetlands sampled would be regulated under the CWA using buffer widths of 0 meters to estimate adjacency, 93.7% with 25-meter buffers, 95.3% with 50-meter buffers, and 95.6% with 100-meter buffer widths.

The Red River valley ecoregion of northwestern Minnesota (n=3) is extremely flat, and historically had a large number of depressional and floodplain wetlands. Many of those wetlands have been drained by extensive drainage and levee systems. 10.1% of the area sampled in this ecoregion was mapped as wetland by the NWI. In the Red River Valley ecoregion, we estimate that if assuming 404 jurisdiction over intermittent and perennial streams and ditches, 54.0% of the wetlands sampled would be regulated as adjacent using buffer widths of 0 meters beyond watercourses and directly-connected wetlands, 59.4% with 25-meter buffers, 65.5% with 50-meter buffers, and 68.2% with 100-meter buffers.

We estimate that if assuming 404 jurisdiction over only perennial streams, 39.6% of the wetlands sampled would be regulated under the CWA using buffer widths of 0 meters to estimate adjacency, 42.6% with 25-meter buffers, 43.O% with 50-meter buffers, and 43.7% with 100-meter buffer widths.

The northern glaciated plains ecoregion of southwestern Minnesota (n=5) is has an area of prairie couteau pothole wetlands in the north and a southern area dominated by streams with few wetlands. A number of the wetlands in the ecoregion have been drained. Only 3.0% of the area sampled in this ecoregion was mapped as wetland by the NWI. In the northern glaciated plains ecoregion we estimate that if assuming 404 jurisdiction over intermittent and perennial streams and ditches, 52.6% of the wetlands sampled would be regulated as adjacent using buffer widths of 0 meters beyond watercourses and directly-connected wetlands, 54.7% with 25-meter buffers, 58.8% with 50-meer buffers, and 60.7% with 100-meter buffers.

We estimate that if assuming 404 jurisdiction over only perennial streams, 8.0% of the wetlands sampled would be regulated under the CWA using buffer widths of 0 meters to

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Page 4 of 8 estimate adjacency, 10.0% with 25-meter buffers, 10.2% with 50-meter buffers, and 10.2% with 100-meter buffer widths.

The northern Minnesota peatlands ecoregion of north central Minnesota (n=3) is a region of extensive organic soil wetlands, of which only portions have been drained. 78.7% of the area sampled in this ecoregion was mapped as wetland by the NWI. In the northern Minnesota peatlands ecoregion, we estimate that if assuming 404 jurisdiction over intermittent and perennial streams and ditches, 96.7% of the wetlands sampled would be regulated as adjacent using buffer widths of 0 meters beyond watercourses and directly-connected wetlands, 96.9% with 25-meter buffers, 98.1% with 50-meter buffers, and 98.5% with 100-meter buffers.

We estimate that if assuming 404 jurisdiction over only perennial streams, 96.4% of the wetlands sampled would be regulated under the CWA using buffer widths of 0 meters to estimate adjacency, 96.5% with 25-meter buffers, 98.0% with 50-meter buffers, and 98.4% with 100-meter buffer widths.

The north central hardwood forest ecoregion of central Minnesota (n=5) is an area of undulating topography known for its lakes, depressional wetlands, and rivers. There has been substantial drainage in some parts of this region. 20.1% of the area sampled in this ecoregion was mapped as wetland by the NWI. In the north central hardwood forest ecoregion, we estimate that if assuming 404 jurisdiction over intermittent and perennial streams and ditches, 56.4% of the wetlands sampled would be regulated as adjacent using buffer widths of 0 meters beyond watercourses and directly-connected wetlands, 58.3% with 25-meter buffers, 62.0% with 50-meter buffers, and 68.1% with 100-meter buffers.

We estimate that if assuming 404 jurisdiction over only perennial streams, 37.0% of the wetlands sampled would be regulated under the CWA using buffer widths of 0 meters to estimate adjacency, 37.8% with 25-meter buffers, 40.6% with 50-meter buffers, and 44.2% with 100-meter buffer widths.

The western cornbelt plains ecoregion of southern Minnesota (n=5) is a region of flat to undulating topography that historically had a large number of depressional wetlands. Many of those wetlands have been drained. Only 3.4 YOof the area sampled in this ecoregion was mapped as wetland by the NWI. In the western cornbelt plains ecoregion we estimate that if assuming 404 jurisdiction over intermittent and perennial streams and ditches, 48.7% of the wetlands sampled would be regulated as adjacent using buffer widths of 0 meters beyond watercourses and directly-connected wetlands, 50.0% with 25­ meter buffers, 51.6% with 50-meter buffers, and 53.7% with 100-meter buffers.

We estimate that if assuming 404 jurisdiction over only perennial streams, 28.0% of the wetlands sampled would be regulated under the CWA using buffer widths of 0 meters to estimate adjacency, 28.7% with 25-meter buffers, 30.1% with 50-meter buffers, and 3 1.5% with 100-meter buffer widths.

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Page 5 of 8 The northern lakes and forests ecoregion of northeast and north central Minnesota (n=8) is known for its lakes, rivers, and depressional wetlands. The wetlands in this region have not been extensively drained. Approximately 38.6% of the area sampled in this ecoregion was mapped as wetland by the NWI. In the northern lakes and forests ecoregion we estimate that if assuming 404 jurisdiction over intermittent and perennial streams and ditches, 87.2% of the wetlands sampled would be regulated as adjacent using buffer widths of 0 meters beyond watercourses and directly-connected wetlands, 88.4% with a 25-meter buffer, 89.7% with 50-meter buffers, and 92.3% with 100-meter buffers.

We estimate that if assuming 404 jurisdiction over only perennial streams 85.4% of the wetlands sampled would be regulated under the CWA using buffer widths of 0 meters to estimate adjacency, 87.7%with a 25-meter buffer, 88.9% with 50-meter buffers, and 91.4% with 100-meter buffer widths.

Of the entire group of 3 1 USGS/NWI quads sampled, we found that 22.7 % of the area sampled was mapped as wetland by NWI. Of the wetland area sampled in the study we estimated that the percent of that NWI-mapped wetland area regulated by the COE under the latest SWANCC guidance (adjacent to perennial and intermittent streams and ditches) would be 82.8% with a O-meter buffer, 83.9% with a 25-meter buffer, 85.8% with a 50-meter buffer, and 88.2% with a 100-meter buffer. When we assumed that the CWA would regulate wetlands adjacent to perennial watercourses only, we estimated that the percent of NWI-mapped wetland area regulated by the COE would be 77.0% with a O-meter buffer, 78.3% with a 25-meter buffer, 79.8% with a 50-meter buffer, and 81.6% with a 1OO-meter buffer.

Discussion

Implications of eliminating 404 jurisdiction over isolated wetlands - Our estimates of statewide decrease in federal jurisdiction in Minnesota due to post-SWANCC guidance on isolated wetlands range from 11.4% to 17.8% of NWI-mapped wetland acres, depending on the buffer widths used to estimate which wetlands should be assumed to be adjacent perennial and intermittent watercourses. The areas with the greatest historic wetland losses appear to be most likely to be regulated only by state law based on the current federal guidance on the regulation of isolated wetlands.

Prior to the SWANNC ruling, it was assumed that federal regulatory and incentive programs would protect wetlands in the agricultural regions of Minnesota. On the basis of the data presented above for the full range of jurisdictional scenarios (from O-meter, 25­ meter, 50-meter, and 100-meter buffers), it appears that there will be substantial decreases in federal regulatory protection of wetlands in the agricultural regions of Minnesota that include the Red River Valley ecoregion (3 1.8%best-case reduction, Table 2), Northern glaciated plains (39.3% best-case reduction, Table 2), western cornbelt plains ecoregion (46.3 best-case reduction, Table 2), and portions of the north central hardwood forest ecoregion (3 I .9% best-case reduction, Table 2). The agricultural areas of these ecoregions would have the protections afforded wetlands by federal farm program. In areas of the north central hardwood forest ecoregion not enrolled in federal

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Page 6 of 8 agricultural programs, areas isolated from watercourses regulated by the CWA could have no federal protection. With the changes to CWA jurisdiction that will result from the January 10, 2003, guidance from the Corps and EPA, it appears likely that at least some of the smaller, drier wetlands (type 1 and type 2) in the agricultural regions of Minnesota would be protected solely by incentive programs implemented by the current federal farm bill.

Implications of deregulating intermittent streams -The ANPRM also requests comments on the idea of restricting jurisdiction under the CWA to streams that are “navigable in fact.” Our analysis eliminated intermittent streams from consideration as jurisdictional as a quick way to assess the wetland regulatory importance of this proposal. We estimate that the additional reduction in federal jurisdiction (beyond reduction due to SWANCC) that would result from deregulation of intermittent streams would range from 5.6% to 6.6% of NWI-mapped wetlands on a statewide basis, depending on the buffer width chosen to estimate adjacent connectivity. However, the effects of deregulating intermittent streams would vary more widely among ecoregions, ranging from 0.3% of NWI-mapped wetlands deregulated in the northern Minnesota peatlands ecoregion to 43.O% additional deregulation in the northern glaciated plains.

Implications of deregulating both isolated wetlands and intermittent watercourses - The implications of not regulating most isolated wetlands and additionally not regulating wetlands unless adjacent to waters judged to be navigable in fact are significant. On a statewide basis in Minnesota, we estimate that roughly 20% of the wetlands regulated under the CWA before the SWANCC ruling would no longer be regulated under the CWA if the CWA no longer applied to waterways mapped as intermittent on 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangles. The variation in estimated scope of deregulation ranges from 1.5% loss of federal jurisdiction in the northern Minnesota peatlands ecoregion to 92% loss of federal jurisdiction in the northern glaciated plains ecoregion (Table 2). Among ecoregions, potential for decrease in federal regulatory jurisdiction is greatest in the ecoregions with the greatest historical wetland losses, including potential losses ranging from 72% in the western cornbelt plains and 63% in the north central hardwood forest, to 92% in the northern glaciated plains. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Tiner, Bergquist, DeAlessio, & Starr. 2002) analysis showed that a range of 34% to 35% (Scenario 3 for Big Lake and Lake Alexander study areas) of NWI-mapped wetlands in their sample from Minnesota’s north central hardwoods ecoregion appeared to be geographically isolated - the comparable estimate from our analysis of 5 quads in the same ecoregion was that 42% of NWI-mapped wetlands appeared to be geographically isolated (using 25-meter buffer around streams). For a South Dakota portion of the northern glaciated plains ecoregion (Clark study area), the USFWS estimated that as many as 98% of NWI-mapped wetlands were isolated, while the comparable estimate from our analysis of five quads showed that 45% of NWI-mapped wetlands were geographically isolated.

The earlier study by USFWS did not specifically attempt to simulate regulatory decision- making, while this study did specifically attempted to assess the scope of potential changes in federal jurisdiction on the regulatory wetland landscape as represented by the

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Page 7 of 8 National Wetland Inventory maps for the quads sampled. This difference in GIS decision-making protocols accounts for some of the variation between the results reported here and those in the USFWS study, along with the natural variation among the various study sites selected. The important point in comparing the current results with DU and USFWS results is that there is clearly potential for a marked decrease in the area of wetland under federal regulation in several ecoregions in Minnesota. It is also important to note that the ecoregions where the greatest deregulation appears likely in Minnesota are also ecoregions that extend into adjacent states like Iowa, South Dakota, and North Dakota. In general all three studies that assessed some portion of the prairie pothole region have concluded that a significant portion of wetlands mapped in that region may be geographically isolated. Although the USFWS and DU studies were completed before the issue of deregulating some tributaries to navigable waters was raised, it appears from our analysis and knowledge of this glaciated pothole region, that deregulating intermittent streams would exclude an additional and significant proportion of mapped wetland from federal regulation.

REFERENCES

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Clean Water Act Regulatory Definition of “Waters of the United States” . Federal Register, v. 68 (1 0). Jan. 15,2003. Pp. 1991­ 1998.

National Wetlands Newsletter, March-April 2001, Volume 23(2),p. 10.

Petrie, M., Rochon, J-P., Tori, G., Pederson, R., Moorman, T. 2001. The SWANCC Decision: Implications for Wetlands and Waterfowl. Ducks Unlimited. Final Report, September 200 1.

Tiner, R.W., H. C. Bergquist, G. P. DeAlessio, and M. J. Starr. 2002. Geographically Isolated Wetlands: A Preliminary Assessment of their Characteristics and Status in Selected Areas of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region, Hadley, MA.

I These WCA exemptions include: agricultural activities when the owner is participating in the federal farm program, agricultural activities on types 1,2 and 6 wetlands, permanent forest roads, activities in incidental wetlands, certain activities for utilities and public works, grandfathered approved development, or certain de minimzrs activities.

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Page 8 of 8

WekOmt?to Nortliwestern ;Minnesota where ;i Linique collection of habitats provide h(mes for ;I ti.ernendous varivti’ (if liirds. Pine forests, deciduous woodlmds, nati\-e tallgrxs prairie., aspm park I md, sand dunes (remnants of Glacial Lake Agassiz). ~~ilcal-eousfcm, lmgs, marshes, large ;i~idsmall 1;thes and rivers inake up the transition zone that offers over 275 species of birds. Alost of the sites :ire on public land or private reserves open to the public. Tlwe are not facilities at all sitcbs.

Some of the unique “lifers”J oil can see here iricli~dt.tlits Northern Goshawk, Ruffed Grouse, ;rater Prairie-(hicken, Yt~llowRail, American Wood(.ock, Sncm y Owl, Northcarn Hawk (3~1,Great Gray Owl, Threc-toed and l3lack-backed Woodpeckcm. Boreal

Chick adee, Bay- breasted, C onnecticiit and Pvl oII I’ nin g Wa r1~1ers, Red and White-m inged Crossldls and Pine and Evening CI rosbeaks.

This guide will lielp you get started. It provides a rt.ft.1-ence for beginning to adv:inced lircleix The trail is ()I er 200 miles in length with 43 sites to view birds. The sites offer sorile of the most spectacular wild places that Minnesota has to offer. Althc )ugh spring, summer and fall offer an a1)undance of birds, winter Is also an exciting time to see winter specialties.

The Pine to Praii ie Birding 7’rail is dynamic.. The future will bring Coniferous Forest I highway signs along the route and inforrnational inipro\,ernents. Deciduou\ Woods Tallgrass Prairie Currently, check with Tourism Officials at Detroit Lakes, Fergus Falls, Roseau, Thief aver F& and Warroad for inforrimtion On bird sightings arid assistance with trip planning.

HABITAT: kloiitli of the K,,arroxlKi\ er ;uid I.ake of th. \Lbods;saiitllxirs at times of low water lcvels; lake edge with trees ;ind c ;:!tail marsh.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: May [lirough Xovemher.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: <,oiiimonI.oon; I Red-necked Grebe;herican Whit e Pe1ic;in: I Greater Scaup; Common Goldeiieye: Bonaparte’s, Franklin’s ;mdHerri iig (;iills; <:aSpkdn and Common Tern; shorel,irds md migrant passerines. In migration, look for rarities such as: Red-throa!ed Loon; Harlequin Duck; scoters: Little antl Sahine’s Gulls and PiDiiig Plover. 1 CI l~,l>,,lgl~llnv, \l<\L \l.,,w,,, - NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: (;heck inarsli(.\and sandbars -- -1­b mar the marina. Two obserlatioii towers c.111be climhc 5.1 in the Warroad City Park to overlook marshes ;and lakc:. Trees and brusl i\ areas between tlie towers are a good spot to look for passerines duriiii: migration. The 1 0 1 2 3 endangered Piping Plover nests on Pine antl Curry Isl.iiid Scientific and Natural Area (SNA) near Morris Point, .ii miles east of\\.’.Iixml. Access at Miles tlie SNA is restricted and ;I spotting scope is essential.

Lost River State Forest - OF ROSEAU

HABITAT: Conifer and deciduous forest; ptxt bog; river; willow and ;t Ider thickets: fields.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: March through Dcwmber.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Spruce Grouse; Snow): Northern Hawk,Great

( I l’ay and Northern Saw-whet Owls;Whip-pooI.-will;Tliree-toedand Black­ 1ucked Woodpeckers:Yelloa.-belliedFlycatclicr; Common Raven; Boreal ( !Iick adee; iM agno1i ;a, (;2113e iMa)., Hlackl~imkii1, Bay-breasted,C~nnecticut ;tiid MourningWarblers:White-winged Crossbill .itid other winter finches. Slxague’s Pipit has been recorded here iilso. -- NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA:’I’he northernmost three miles of Hwy. 310,just before reaching the Can:idian Imder are the best. Access to areas off the highw;i!, are mainly by minimum inaintenaiice roads antl hiking forest trails. Some roads iiiaj, be dif‘ticult io travel in winter.

CONTACT: Lost Kiver State FORST. 1101 I;ke St.NE, Warroad, MN 56763, (2 18) 3861304. ROSEAU TREATMEN

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Fenced and gated. <)Ill)' the east 1X)IlCl Glfl be scanncd from outside thc: fence. For ;iccess inside thc ponds area, prior permission is requirctl. Foot traffic only.

CONTACT: Roseau I'tility

Ikpartment, 1198 Center St. 1 0 1 3

W, Roseau,MN 56751. Miles ('18) 46.5-2351.

AU RIVERWILD EMENT AREA @ HABITAT: Marshes:fidds;deciduous woods; larp pools

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: Apr chroigh (ktolx :. Very popular with waterfowl , nd deer Iiuntei during season. Check at the I t.adquartcrs for restrictions and areas to avoic

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Fiscspecies ofgrvlies: Least Bittern; waterfowl;Yellov Rail;Sandhill Crmrt: Wilson's Phalarope; Franklin': Gull; Forster's 7.t rn: LhiarshWren: Ix<:onte's and r ;.lson's Sharp-tailed Sprrows.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Dike ro; 1's along pools 11i~y I>% acccssed on foot or by bicycle. Rest viewing pi rlxbly in spring..IS c;iltails imy obscure view of some areas in late siiniiner or fall. Hlintls

0.1thc east side of Pool One may be used for bird 1 lliservation exccl~t dhiring the waterfowl hunting season. Also che 'cas of sedge ll1.Il Sh 2 0 2 4 6 soi.itli of this WMA along Co. Rd. 7. I Miles CONTACT: lioseau River WMA, 27952 400th St..Ro >C>;ILI,MN 56751-8057. (2 18) 463-155'. HABITAT: Dcci; luc )iis md coniferous forcst; peat bog; 1 iieadom .

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: May through June;;\iigiist thr )ugh M;irch.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Northern (;osh;nvk; Kuffecl Grl )use;Spruce ( )wit; Northern Hawk. GIeat ;ray and Boreal Owls:1Uac.k-billedCi ~ckoo;Wliip-pwwill; Three-toed and Bliick-lucked Woodpcckers: Alder Fl!ratch :r; Hore;il Chi,k.iciee; more than 20 spec ies of nesting warblers including Golden-winged. ( apc May, Hlackburnian, Pine. Bay- breasted. Connecticut .incl Moiirning: Pine and 1.veniiig Grosbeaks; Red anJ W. hite-winged Crossbills.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Forest road> are open to the pibIi\~.Thompson Forest Koad is highl! recommeiided. A I rw wcondary roads are gated to protec t surfaces during vel-LT m {.tperiods of the spring and fiill. Mary forest roads are no plc ~mwlin winter. Logging trails may 1 be hiked, giving gootl acc ess to remote areas. Campground> and picnic areas c.in be found here. Visitors may contact the two following offic:es for inform;ition.

CONTACT: For the utest haif oJ'the stateforest: Area Forest Super\ isoi,DNR Forestrj; 1101 Lakc. Street N i, Wirroad, MN 5670.3,(.!lS) 386-1304. For the east ha![ oJ' the state forest: Area Forest Super\ isoi, DNR Forestry, 206 Main Street E., Baudette. MN 566-!3,( 218) 634-2172.

5 0 5 10 15 20

Miles iirclicntesHeadqiiatlers

HABITAT: Deciduoiis and coniferous forest; peat bog and meadow. This WRlA is contained entirely within the Beltrami Island State I cmst.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: May through June;August thri ILL& March.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Same ;is Reltrami Island State Forest.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Remote. AcceLdAe only by forest roads and m .ilkiiig trails. Bird checklist a\7ailable. \ isitors should contact the headqi :artc rs office at Norris Camp fix currem condition of roads and trails.

CONTACT: Red Lahe WMA, PO Box 100,Roosevelt, MTJ 5667.3, 1% I L1,lIll

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: ,Mapthroiigh June ,\ugust through October.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Common Loon: Osprey;Whippoor-will:

13l:ick-liackcclWoodpecket ( I my Jay; Ikick-billed hl:igpie and (:cd:irWaxwing. Rare birds recorded here include: Spruci: Grouse: Ih )rrral Owl and Western Wood-Pewee.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Vehicle permits are reclwrcd. Area inap and bird checklist are :iwtilald(., Picnic ;\rea and camping available. Acljaceii t to the Beltixmi Island State Forest.

CONTACT: Hayes I.;ihr. State I’ark. 48990 Co. Rd. 4,Ros~;~LI. hlN 5675 1, (218) 425-7504. 5 0 5 10 15 20

Miles

LAKE BRONSON STATE PARK

HABITAT: Aspen parklancls; oak savannah; prairie and lake.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: May through Jutie:August through October.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Waterfowl; Sharp-tailed Groiise; shorebirds including Upkiiid Sandpiper: Long-eared and Northern Saw-whet Owls;woodpeckers: warblers;sparrows and finches. \c>~ll,vtn\,(\\ \\lit1 (hil h.ili, !I.$\\> NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Vehicle permit. are required. Area m:ip aid bird checklist :ire available. Picnic area and camping available.

CONTACT: Like Uroiison State Park. I3ox 9, Lake Rronsc’n,SIN 56-54,

ToThief River Falls (2 18)754-2200.

4 0 4 I Miles HABITAT: Lakes;mardi; blush I;intl; prai t-le:oak ha\-annah; aspen forcst.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: hlay throLigh ( )ctobcr.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Wai erfo~l;wils; Sandhill Crane; warblers; Eastern Towhee;hmerican Bittt:rn:sprr,nvs: ikild Eagle and Common I.oon.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: I’txiriewildflowers are lovel~,in inid summer. Watch for nioosc,w(jives, 1)olxxt and river otter. Free camping ;it eight primitive sites \vithin thc WMG.

CONTACT: DNR Wildlife Area )fficc.,P( ) Box 154,Karlstad, MN 56732, (218) 436-242’

,, . Y I ) Tnief River Falls I 3 0 3 6 9 12

Miles +-+-=I ‘ HABITAT: Lake: ixarsl i: (I i.cicl ti()11s wwods; alder thickets: ficltls.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: ,\pril t1iroLigh October.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Fivc species ofgrebes;

American Bittern: Black-c I‘( )v nccl Night-Heron:waterfowl including <:anKasback mtl I:riclclj~Ihck; Franklin’s Gull;

S;mdhill Crane: warblers ;ati1.1 grass1;ind sparrows.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Follow the road along the south end ol I he lake There is ;I ”wildlife viewing mound” along tliis i~oad.

CONTACT: Thief Lake F‘LIA. H<:l< Box 17, Alicldle River. IMN 56’37. (I 18) 222-5’47

-I-- I I

6 0 6 12 18

Miles

HABITAT: Large pools: marshes;gr;assl;mcl; brushland;aspen woodland.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: April through November.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Five species of grebes; Black-crowned Night-Heron; waterfowl; rails; Sandhill Crane; shorebirds; Short-eared Owl; SedgeWren; Le( :ante's and Nelson’s Sharptailecl Sparrows. Rarities recorded include: Snowy and Cattle Egrets;White-winged Scoter; Long-tailed Duck; Golden Eagle:Willow Flyciatcher and Mountain I3luehird.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Checklist available. Stop at the office for current information. Office hours are 7:30a.m. to 4:OO p.m. weekdays year-round. Auto tour route open May-October.Two short hiking tmils,one wheelchair accessible. at Headquarters. Pools in drawdown are good for shorebirds.

CONTACT: Agassiz NWR. Route 1 Box 74, Middle Kiver. MN 56717. MILL STATE PAR

HABITAT: Dcc idu )LIS \\.oodlands;coi1iic.l.c 11s p1;Int ions; ;ispen parkland; o:k s,i\ ann .ill: pciiric; --et iiie:tc!o,,\ ; river ;[I lake. BEST TIMES TO VISIT: April through O( toher *P 't

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Sliarptailcd ( iroiisc; Silo' 1 (winter only). Longeared,Shoi-t<.arecI and Northern %iw-\vhtt Owls;1% ted Woodpecker; vireos; wrens;v,aihlei.s;tncl finches. Rarities seeti be ? irzclurle Clark's Nutcracker anti I\Yloiintain Illuebird.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Vthic e permits are required. Area map and bird checklist are availah e. Picnic area and campin,=;tv ailable.

CONTACT: Old Mill State 1% :k. Route 1 Box 4.3> 5 0 5 Argyle MN 5671 5, l .- (218) 437-8174. Miles

*i WETLANDS, PIN D PRAIRIE AUDUBON TUARY

HABITAT: Writerw;tys;ponds;pines; slmice ;ind cc'ur planti ng5; deciduous woods; restored prairie.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: May through Jime;Augitst through October.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: hlany passerines. cspeciallv during migration. Amcric;m Hittern: Long-eared ;md Short-eared (Iwls;Ci .iy Rtrtric ige;Black­ billed Cuckoo: Western Kingbird; grassland slxirrows; Orchard Oriole.

3 0 3 I Miles ALL E PIT

mudcly during \\et \I C;I I it'r Prior to your visit. co11t;i r't tlic plant siil,rrintcndcl.i1.

CONTACT:

Plant Siiperint enclcnt ~ PO Box 528, Thief Ki\-crEills. MN 56'-',)1 (218) 681-4425.

HABITAT: Rice paddies; fields;pasti-ires:slmlbby gmsl.tnd~;woodl;ind edges;calcareou:,fens;conifei­ and l- ;~rdwoodseelxige swamps.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: March through May.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Waterfowl. including Snow ( ;o. ,se and Tundra Swan;Rough-leggedHawk: Pereyrint. Falcon; Mxbleci Godwit and other early short birc Is: Snowy and Short-eared Owls. Watch for )ss's Geese mixed with Snow Geese.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Exctllent area to visit in early spring. As migration proceec's, niig~intsongbirds are common in the area ;ilso. 1';iddies ;ire privately om ned,so plcase stay (in main roads. Interesting mcl Eire plant communities a id I ie;iiititiil wildflowers. Waterproof footgeitr is recommended. 1 0 1 2 3 4 CONTACT: Supervisor. DIIJR 'Scientific and iYatur;il Areas Progrmi, I Miles 500 Lakiyette Kd.,St. Paul, MN 55155. (651) 207-235' NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: \Waterproof foot gear recommended No trail- av.iil.iblt Foot traffic 0.I<. Beautiful wildflowers in sun I mei: Wii c 11 for moose.

CONTACT: Supervisor.DNR Scicmilil. mtl Uatiuxl Areas I’rogr,un. 500 Laiiiyette Rd.,St.Piiul,hlN55155,((61) 207-2357

“4‘ TYMPANUCHUSWILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA (WiW)

PANKMTZ RIAL HABITAT: ’rhllgrass prairie and \{.et meadow.

PRAIRIE BEST TIMES TO VISIT: HABITAT: Native tallgrass and mesic. prairie; calcareous April through October. fen and sedge marsh. BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: BEST TIMES TO VISIT: April tlirough Ociober Greater Prairie-<:hicken; Cpland Sandpiper; Marbled BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: <;rester Prairie-<:I ~ickm;Yellow Godwit; Short-eared Owl; Rail; tipland Sandpiper;M;irblcd Godwit:Wilsc HI’S Phalarope: Le Conte’s and Nelson’s Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow. Sh.irptailed Sparrows. LC.,l< 1~1.111li. ( I,

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: r\pril tlirough August

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: W;itcrfowl;Rough-legged Hawk; I’eregrine Falcon; Sandhill

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA Large concentrations of Sandhill Cranes ;ire most likely in 4pIil. Longspur flocks move through in early spring. Shorebircls often use the impoundments. Best time to look is late

2 n 4 R

Miles

RYDELL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (NWR)

HABITAT: Marshes; decicluous woodlands; fields

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: May through June;August through October.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Trumpeter Swan;passerines, including Scarlet Tanager;Rose-breasted Grosbeak;passland sparrows; Bobolink and finches.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Checklist available. Handi­ capped accessible ~rails.Refuge Office is open 7:3O - 4:00 Monday through Friday. Call ahead for visitor center and trail access hours. As this is a

3 I1 3 I Miles Z DUNES SC TlFlC AND NATU LEARNING CENT

HABITAT: Smtl dunes; prairie; oak s;ivann;ili; river; ;ispen parklands. 2 0 4

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: April through October. Miles

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Sharp-tailed Grouse;Greater Prairie-Chicken; Sandhill Crane; Upland Sandpiper:Marbled Godwit;Vi Ison's Phalarope; Marsh Wren; Claj -colored, LeConte's and Nelson's Sharptailed Sparrows and a variety of migrmt songbirds.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Area is reinnant beach ridge from Glacial Lake Acassiz and verv

WAUBUN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENTAREA (WMA)

HABITAT: 'Cillgrass nrairie, catt.iil/sednr .I marsh; wet meadow.

BEST TIMES TO V'ISIT: r*I' T e,: 1 April through June. BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Iort 11 ern WhubunTMA 1 fi Harrier;Greater Pmiric:-Chicken;Yellow Rail; I Sandhill Crane;prairie spirrows inchrding Nelson's Sharp-tailed. 1 '1.11 8ilIllll ('I ,Ill?\ \IC'\ C' dl

CONTACT: Wildlife Area Manager, MN DNK, PO Box 823, To Detroit Lakes I Detroit Lakes, MN 56502, (218) 847-1578. OWL

HABITAT: hativc t:illgtxvsprairie; \I etlancls

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: ,ipril through June;Scptember throiigh October.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Waterfowl: Peregrine 1:;ilcoti;(ireater Ikiirie­ <:hicken;Sanclhill Cranc: !I plaiicl S;inclpiper;< ommon Snipe;Sedge and Marsh Wren: prairie sp;irro\vs.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Acl:ess the ;irc;i from the east or west \ides of the WI?k R, )ads m;iy be very m iiddy ;iiicl nearly impassable during wet w.e;ither. hloose ;ire occasionally been in this area.

Miles

0 3 6 9 12 HAMDEN SLOUGH NATIONAL I3Miles WILDLIFE REFUGE (NWR)

HABITAT: Large and small wetlands;grasslands; wooded shelter belts.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: April through November.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Waterfowl Including Green-wingedTeal,Canvasback, Redhead, Common Goldenej e and R~iddyDuck Shorebirdswhen marshes are in drawdown, Snowy Owl (winter only), Sedge dnd Marsh Wrens,grassland sparrows,Bobolink and Yellow-headed Blackbird Rarities seen include C attle Egret and Piping Plover \lllCl\\ 1% 1 IlLl 111i

CONTACT: Hamden Slough NWR, 21212 - 210th St., AIldLIboi1,MN 5651 1, (218) 439-6319. NALWILDLIFE REFUG

HABITAT: <:onifer and tleciduous woocdiands;lakcs; bogs; marshes rivers and prairie.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: April through .‘uiie:Augiistthrough October.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: <:ommon Im)n liiinipeter Sw;iii;Wood lhck; Bald Eagle; Red-shoddrrrd and Broad-winged Hawks; Peregrine Falc OII: Ruffed (;rouse;herican Woodcock;Winter Sedge and Marsh Wrens: ni;in) neotropical migrants including 25 species )I’ warblers possible in iiiid-Ma): Rarities seen include: Whitc-winged Scoic.r:Great Giy Owl: Black-baclird; Cerulean Warbler and Spotted Towhee.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: (:hecklist available. Stop at the visitor c’enter for current information. HOLU-sarc 730a.m. to 4:OO p.m. weekd;q.s year-roui ~d,and summer weekend aifteriiooi 1.i. Please share wildlife sightitigs with refuge staff. Closed federal holidays.

CONTACT: Tamarac NWR,

35704 0%.Hwy. 26, Rocliert, MN 56578, 9 0 9

(218) 84--2641. Miles

:/I/ lll~lll\lll~l~l~~ll~ll/ll\

*x DETROIT LAKESWETLAND 2 0 2 MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/PRAIRIE= Miles MARSHTRAIL AND BOARDWALK

HABITAT: I, - )Il Crittail mar4 wetlmd, prairie, woodlots BEST TIMES TO VISIT: April through June;August through October.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Waterfowl including Trumpeter Swan;Northern Harrier; <;( )iiiiiionNighthawk;woodpeckers;flycatchers; Sedge Wren; Eastern Bl~iebiKt;prairie sl-,mows; Rose-breasted Grosbeak; Baltimore Oriole and finches.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Office hours are 7:jO a.m. to 4:OO p.m. weekdays. Closed federal holidays. Boardwalk and trail open daylight hours. Map and birding checklist available.

CONTACT: Detroit Lakcs Wetlaiid Managcment District, 26624 N.Tower Road, Detroit Lakes, MN 56501, (218) 847-4431, www.detroitlakes.coin/Lis~isliwil~llife. DUNTO CKS CO

HABITAT: I.;ikcs:iii:ii-+c,. ;uicl \\ oodlands.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: L1;i) tl:roiigh October.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: < :omiiil)ii Loon; lidnecked (;rebe: waterfin\ 1 m.ooclpcckc.rs:\,ireos;W;IIW.TS;tiid finches. There is a <;reat Blue Hero11 colon). along II\v).. 59. (:( m.iilt arc ;I imp for location.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: (:lose to Detroit Lakes. Trail. begin near the picnic shc.ltc,rs

2 0 2 3

Miles

'ON PRAIRIE

HABITAT: Native and restored prairie; woodlots; g ivel pits

BEST TIMES TO VISIT April th rougli October; December throui h March.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR;: Greater Prairie- Chicken;tJpl;ind Sandpipe ;Marbled Godwit; Snowy Owl (winter only); oggerhead Shrike: Willow Flycatcher:Grasshoj *perand IxConte's Sparrows: Chestnut-collar d (breeding) and L;ipland (migrant) Longspu 's;Orchard Oriole. Rarities seen include: P airie Falcon; S:q.'s

Phoebe; Sprague's.. Pipit; Ea rd's Sparrow.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Private pro erq. is incluclcd in this complex, so please obey signs. Prairie wildflonx -s ;ire spectacular in miclsumnier. BU RIVER STATE

HABITAT: Prai ie; iiparian forest; river.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: May thro igh June;August throi rgh October.

BIRDS TO LOOK IJpland Said! @el; Bobolink; grasslai d sparrows;woodpec ker.;; finches and rnigr; nt passerines. The E lue gray Gnatcatcher can be found at the p irk on the periphery of its Minnesota ran ;e. \I\ I)\

NOTES FOR BlRDlNG THE AREA: \Ithick permit required for the ark Checklist avai1;tble for entire are:i Walking trails at both the park and science center. Interpretive centt r located at the science center features a bird feeding arc a ai rd bird exhibit.

CONTACT: B~iifa10 River State Park, PO Box 352, Glyndon,MN 565 47,(218) 493-2124. Minnesota State University Moorh ead Regional Science Center. 1104 7thAvenue i.,Rloorhead. MN 56563,(218) 236-20(4 or www.rnoorhe;c1.n isus.edu/regsci/. ESTEM PRAIRIE SClE URAL AREA

HABITAT: Tallgmss prairie;wet prairie; sedge meadow; calcareous fen. This native prairie pie(:$: is recognized as one of the largest and highest quality northern tallgrass pr:iiries in the LJ.S.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: April through November.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Greater Prairie-<;hickcn;Sandhill (:rane; Upland Sandpiper: Marbled Godwit: Loggerhead Shrike: Henslow's Sparrow; Eastern Meadowlarh (at the western edge of its range).

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Illformation and map available through The Nature Conservancy. Waterproof footgear recornmeticled. Foot traffic O.K.

CONTACT: The Nature Conservancy, 15.337 28th Ave. S.,Gly~iclon,MN 56547. (218) 498-2079. BEST TIMES TO VISIT: April through Oct ~bcr.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Grcxt Egret; (;re .n fIcroii:','iitkc). Vulture; LX ood Fhicl,: Osprc!.; lie(; -1ioLildered 1hwk: w( dpeckcrs;\ irros; warblers including (;olclcn-wingc I :itid Indigo Ihiiting.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA Vehicle pc. rlits requirecl. Picnic area and c:impgroi :rds avaiI;ible. f?ill leaf color is spectac;iiar!

CONTACT: X1:tplewoocl State Park, liollte 5, Box 422. Pelican Rapids, >IN 565?2, (218) S6j-Sj83.

ANNA GRONSETH PRAl

HABITAT: Txllgrass prairie; wet. slight y alkaline meadow

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: April I hrough O~.:tober.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Greater Prairie- C1iickt.n;Saiidliill Crane;Yellow Rail;&l,larbled Gotlwit:Alcler & 'Willow Flycatchers; LeConte's ;mdNelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrows.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Waterproof foot gear recommended. No esi.ablislicd trails. Foot traffic O.K.

CONTACT: Tlie Nature Conservancj. 15.157 28th Avc. S..Glyndon, MN 50547, (218) 4')s-2679.

0 6 9 13- Miles - N IRI

HABITAT: 'Ihllgrass prairic-:wL~tinc tdon m;irsli.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: ,\prii tlirc,gigli ktober.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Nor! liern H;irricr:Xmcric.i 1 tkstrel: Grtratcr l'rairie-Chicken: Sedge Wren 1x1irie si ~irrows.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Waterproof footgear recoiiinienkd. qo est:iblished trails. Foot traffic 0.t;.

CONTACT: The Nature C(mservant !.. 153.17 28tliAve. S., Glyiidon. Mh 565 i7. (218) 498-2679.

3 0 6 9 -- t -- - Miles

Ii4ABITAT: Fields: native. mesic prairie; wet Imairie;wetlands.

IJEST TIMES TO VISIT: Labruary through June;i\iigust through Ikcc ntber.

GIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Gray Partridge: Greater Prairie-Chicken; , .~ndliillCrxne: Marbled ;otlwit: Snowy (winter only) and Short-eared Iwls;Willow Flycatcher; Lapland and Srnith'b Longspurs. Rarities to 'oak for iriclude: Ferruginous Hawk: Golclen Eagle; Prairie Falcon; I enslow's Sparrow.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: 'Illis site features some of northwestern 1Minnesot;i's best fall and winter birds ng. Some land is privately owned, so please obe!. signs. Excellent for a diversity of native sparrows in early Octoixr. Waterproof footgear recommended. No established trails available. Foot traffic 0.K.

CONTACT: DNK Area Wildlife Office. 1221 FirAve. E., Fergus Fills, MN 56537, (218) 739-7576. f ETTLEDRUMME PRAIRIE and f FOXHOME PRAIRIE

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: A1)ril throiigli Oc~iolx-r.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Red-t:iiltrcl H;Iw'\. (ircatcr Prairie-Chicken; Upland Saiidppei ; .l.larl>lecl(;oclwit;Elstern Kingbird hedge Wren; Savannah, Henslow's, Le( :OHtc'y ;uid Nelson's S1iarpt:iiled spirro\\ \i I3obolink;Western Meadowlark.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THESE AREAS: \Vaterproof footgear reconunended. No esthllslicd trails available. Foot traffic 0.I<.

CONTACT: The N;iture <;onservancy,1 5S.S-' 28th Ave. S.,GIyndon, MN, 56547, (218) .i98 20?9.

3 0 3

Miles ENRIDGEWAS EATMENT PO

HABITAT: M~iixipal treatment ponds: fields

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: April tlu-oiigli May Septeniber through October.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Waterfowl: shorel iirds; gulls; term; migrant sparrows.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Viewing from rownship ro:d permitted. For ac~xss inside the ponds area, prior permission is required.

2 0 2 4

Miles

IE WETLANDS CENTER

HABITAT: Prairie: wetlands and wooded shelterbelts.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: April through JLUK;September tlmxigh February

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Chipping, Clay-colored,Vesper, Savannah, 1.e Conte’s,Song.White-throated,Harris’s and White-crowned Sparrows; I.;ipland and <:lir.stnut-collaredLongspurs;Dickcissel; Bobolink Eastern and Western Me;idowlarks.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Four miles of walking trails are ;wailable,open &awn to dusk. Visitor Center is open weekdays 8:OO a.m.to 4:OO p.m. Call for summer hours. Prairie wildflowers inid to late summer.

CONTACT: Prairie Wetlands Learning Center, 1 0 1 2 3 Route 1 Box 76,Ferg~isFalls,MN 56537. I Miles (2 IS) 736-0938. L 1 0 1 2 3 1 5 ~ , -I Miles

HABITAT: Nat i1.c ~ilIg~issprai rie

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: April tliroiigli Oct(her,

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: imericrin I5ittern:<;rciter I’rairic­ <:hickcn:Sedge Wren: <~miiionYellowt hroat; Clciy-colorccl, Savann;ih and Sm~inipSpri-ows:Bobolink mid .4niericmi Goldfinch.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Vi’riterprooffootgear reo mmenclecl. Foot traffic 0.K

CONTACT: Fergus Fali4 \Vetland Mmageinelit District.

Route 1,Box -6, Fergus l.dls, MN 56537, (2 18j 730-2291,

1, ORWELLWILDLIFE MANAGEMENTAREA (WMA)

HABITAT: Reservoir;wetlands:riparian areas;bnshd grasslands, planted juniper.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: April through June; August through October.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Common Loon;waterlb~l;Bohemian Waxwing in winter. Rarities seen include Long-earedand Northern Saw-whet Owls; Townsend’s Solitaire.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Use overlooks and back roads to get closer to the reservoir. There is a No Trespass Sanctuary within the WMA, so please observe this posted area.

CONTACT: DNK Wildlife Area Office, 1221 Fir Aye. E., Fergus Falls, MN 56537. (218) 739-7576. 4-OTTER TAIL PRAIRIE SCIENTIFIC AND NATURALAREA

HABITAT: Native prairie

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: March through June; September through I kcember.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Grc;iter t'rairic.-( :hicken; [Jpland Sandpiper; Marbled Godwit; grassland sparrows. 1,001; for wintering Snowy Owls and migrant Short-eared Owls.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Foot traffic O.K. Waterproof footgear recommended. Vehicle access on north and south borders.

Ottet Tail 1 Prairie Sh \

i o 1 2 3 4 5 6 i- I Liles

429+b,GLENDALOUGH STATE PARK

HABITAT: Deciduous .cvoodlands;wetlands; lakes; prairie.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: May through June;-4ugust through October.

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: Waterfowl; hawks; woodpeckers;flycatchers;vireos; warblers; sparrows and finches.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Vehicle permits required. Caniping and picnic area available. Map available. Inquire about wildlife viewing blinds.

CONTACT: Glendalough State Park, 25287 Whitetail Lane Battle Lake, MN 56515-9654, (218) 864-0110. EGRET 1 AND NATURA EA (PELICAN LAK

HABITAT: A .i.+acrc isl;iiicI \\ tli I 1 eprct/hui~m-(I( c' *' oi'c of tlie largest in Minnesot:~.

BEST TIMES TO VISIT: YIx! 1111' 1~2~1.1J~lj

BIRDS TO LOOK FOR: <;re;it '31~.IIcron: <;reat Egret; Black-crowmed Ni,$t L 11:ron. Rarities seen here include: TIii:o.ci,rcl ;ind Little Blue Herons: Snow! Egret?.

NOTES FOR BIRDING THE AREA: Access to tlie isl;md is prohibitril btit it can be circutniiavigated I>>, boat. Nc;irb, .aLe Christina is great for waterbirds.

2 0 CONTACT: Supervisor, DNR Sv:iciiiitic and N: till .\I i' t'; . I'rc gram, 2 -I Miles St. .I- -- 500 Laf:i\,etteKcl.. Paul, MN 5'1 15,i (6c~l)297 i!!,

FERGE S 4 wn Infbmnation

Fergus Falls thr. southern tilost (.it ('11 this birdin;: trail, is located on 1-94,in the West Cent~alLakes Area,

just 175 miles N\V (:If Minneapolis I' i rgus Falls is centered within deciduous woodlands tallgrass prairies. and lakes country. Eleven of tlir. I !irbling sites are within 20 miles of Fergus Falls.

l;c?'&q!skid]: For more inj,wrrzatirwz contmt the Fergus Falls Convention and Visitor's Bureau, Box 868. (:ily 1;i I., Fergus Falls, MN 56538-0868,1-800-726-8959.F;ix 218-739-0149,

I e-mail: ffninci bi 1 prairietecli.iiet, or look LIS LIPat www.visitfergushiIs.com ktroir Lakes is the ccnti-al location ; long tht. I’im t( ’ Prairie 13irdingTr;iiI. iktroit 1Aes provides 3 different

irmisition zones all \\ it hin 30 milcs, ncliiclin;: prai rric ~ cleciduoiis woods. ;ind coniferous forests. All of these ~iflkrmore then 250 species of hii Is just in Bcc.kt:r <:ounty. This pro\ ides great opportunities for the neginning birch to the most experi mced birder. (:,)mecelclmte migr;ition at the Detroit 1;tkes Festival of ;

For more informatio tz contact tli e Detroit Lakes Regional Chamber of Commerce, I?O. Box $is,Detroit L;i kes, Mi\ 5650..!. 1-800-542-3992.e-mail:dltourisiiic~)lakesnet.net,or look us up at www.visit letroitlakes.coiii

Americlnn Motel & Suites American xgion Campground Best Westcrn Holland House and Suites Budget HoZIiii Beach Kesort 888-7--CAPRI I Pitic-. to Palm Motel 888-847-5069 800-60-3395 Ki\ crside Place Resort 2 18-847-1415 Serenity-. Ila!, Resort and <:;impgrouiicl 2 18-847-1010 (set Shores Resort and <:ammrouiid 21 8-847-5851 7-1.151 Siq’er 8 Motel 800-800-8000 e e i n g Resort Motel 2 18-847-2894 I Fern Beach- Rcwrt 877-8 7-9627 I’illage Resort and C;impground 888-847-8923

A ’-Q-7 Thief River Falls is located midway a!ong the Pine To Prairie t3irdingTrail. Bring your binoculars, your camera and your sense of wonder and adr7c mture. Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge, the largest Wildlife Refuge in the state of Minnesota.is an incredil-le hotspot located within a short distance. The refuge provides a haven for as many as 280 species of birds. You are apt to spy the SedgeWren. the Mourning Warbler,Yellow Rail, or the Sandhill Crane, just to name a few. If you hve any downtime from birding,Thief River Falls offers plenty to keep you occupied with ;L museum, 18 hole golf course, nearby casinos and a tour of the Arctic Cat plant where snowmobiles aiid \P’s are manufactured.

For more itzformation (,ontactthe Thief River Falls Convention & Visitors Bureau, 2017 Hwy. 59 %,Thief Rivzr Falls, Mn. 56701,1-800-827-1629.email:[email protected],or look us up at www.ci.thief-river-falls.mi.us. - - Motels -mi Inn Hwy. 32 South.Thief River Falls, Mil. 56701 800-569-8123 -1 1586 Hwy. 29 !;E,Thief River Falls, Mil. 56701 800-950-8111 -Motel 1010 M:dn Ave N..Thief River Falls, Mil. 56701 2 18-681-2640 iotel- 1915 Hwy. 59 !;E,Thief River Falls, Mn. 56701 888-890-9568 -1 & Video Hwy. 59 SE,Th ef River Fall, Mil. 56701 2 18-681-2720 - Campgroutid *rF;ills‘Iourist Park Located Hwy 112.S. and Oakland Park Road 2 18-681-2519 ~ Area Information

,. . .' ' -_ 1104, xi,just IO niiles froit1 Canada. pro\ides ;I treineii~loiisopportunity to enjo! wilcllifc :inti wildflower \ icvVingat tlic iiiinierow public parks2wildlife refugcs Ji ni;inagement areas. and tiwests all \\Win ;I 20 mill ite drive. Otlicr actil ities in Koscaii inclutle: Polaris Industries tours. Roseau County Rlusciim. Pioneer l,ari-1 S \'ikigc, unique spcciakv store\. ;ind the Oak <:restGolf (hursc. i i For. wiorc' it!fop-tnation contcicl the Roseau Convention & Visitors Bureau, \\ --.A 100 2nd Avenue NE; Box .307.liosc~1i1,hlN 56751, 1-800-815-1824. e:in:iil: tpetersti~"wiktc1.o)in.or looli 11s up ;it w~w.rr~.net/roseau

Motels

WHO!Area Information r-7L_, Local.ed at the Northern most part of the Pine to Prairie Birding Trail,Warroad is a true picture of beautiful northern wiltlerness. It neighbors the Reltraini Island State Forest, and the Red Lake Wildlife Management Area - the largest WMA in Minnesota. Also enjoy. fishing, camping, hiking, northernlights mtl incredible photographic opportunities. , I For more information contact the Warroad Chamber of Commerce,

L 1'0 I3ox 551,W:irroad, MN 56763,l-800-328-4455,218-386-3543,Fax: 218-386-3454, email: [email protected],or look us up zit www-.warroad.org

Motels Super X Motcl 800-800-8000 218-3863723 Can-Ani Motel X00-280-262(> 2 1X-3H~,-3X0' Patch Motel 800-288-2753 2 18-386-2723 Hospital Bay Bed Ji Breakfast 800-568-6028 2 I8-38(,-2(>2'

Campgroiind

~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ 2 18-386-1004 4 P irding

LOONS u (:olnl170rl (;oldenc!r SANDPIPERS Sr ALLIES Hoodccl \lcrganser )W 0 <:ommonIo011 u (lreatcr Ycllc IC gs u <:oinmoir Merganser I.csserl’ellowlr~~s GREBES ‘J Rccl-brc;istcd h1crgan.r I. 5olit;it.y S:iiidpiper 0 I’iccl-billccl Grebe u Rutlcly I)~ick \Wet hpottecl s:lIlc1~>1~1cr Horned (,rebe HAWKS & EAGLES 0 Rccl-ncckcd Grebe I .pl;ind Sanclpipcr 0 hrccl <;rche u osprey Hudsonian God wit u Bald Eagle Marhlccl Gocln 1: 0 Western ( ,rebe u Kortherii Harrier Iluclcly TLirnstonc PELICANS !J Sh;irp-shinnecl Hawk Ilcd Knot American mite Pelican u (:ooper‘h Hawk S:uiclerling a u Northerii Goshawk Scniip;ilmatcd hindpiper CORMORANTS u Ilcd-shouldered HawL kist Sanclpipcr 0 Doublc-cixwxl Cormorant Rro;id-\viiiged Hawk White-rumpcrl untlpiper J Sn ainson’s Hawk Haird‘s S;intlpipt.r HERONS, BI‘M‘ERNS & iJ Red-tailed Hawk Pcctor;il Sandpiper ALLIES 12 Rough-IC-ggedHawk Dunlin 0 Ainericari Bittern J <;olden kagle Stilt S;indpiper 0 Least Bittern FALCONS Ruff-brcahttrd 5;I ndpiper 0 Great Blut Heron J American Kestrel Short-billed Dowitcher Q Great Eg1’r.t u Merlin Long-billed Doivitcher 0 Snowy Egret IJ I’eregriiir Falcon Common Snip 0 Cattle Egret i l Prairie 1.alcon hierican \Vootlcock 0 Green Hcron wllson‘s l’l1;Iklr~~pc 0 Black-crowned Night-Heron PARTRIDGE, GROLJSE Red-neckedPh.ilarope Yellow-crowned Night-Heron & TURKEY 0 GULLS &TERNS ‘J(hy Rirtridge NEW WORLD VULTURES 2 King-necked Pheasallt 0 Franklin’s (;till 0 Turkey Vulture 2 R~iffed(;rouse 0 Bonaparte’s Gull 3 Spruce Grouse 0 Iling-billed Gull DUCKS, GEESE & SWANS 3 Sharp-tailed Grouse 0 Herring Gull a Greater \\’hitc-fronted (;ooze 12 Greater Pr:iirie-Chiclxc11 0 C;ispi;iii Tern 0 Snow Goose 7 Wild Turkey 0 Coninion Tern 0 Ross’s Goose 0 Forster’sTern 0 Canada (hose RAILS & COOTS 0 BlackTern ’himpeter Swan 0 ~cllowWail 0 PIGEONS & DOVES 0 Tundra Swan 0 Virginia kail 0 Wood Duck 0 Sora D Rock Dove 0 Gadwall a Aineric:in Coot 0 Mourning Dovc Anieric;in Wigeon 0 CUCKOOS a American Black Duck CRANES 0 Mallard 0 Sandhill Crane 0 Black-billed Cuck(oo 0 Hue-wingedTeal 0 \iellow-hillecl ( uckoo 0 Northern Shoveler PLOVERS 0 Northern Pintail 0 Black-bellied Plover OWLS 0 Greai-m inged Teal 0 Americm Golden-Pli~\c‘r 0 Eastern Scrcrt h-Owl 0 Canv:tsl>:ick 0 Seniipalniatcd Plovt r 0 Great Horned Ow1 0 Iledhcad 0 I’iping Plover 0 sno\vy Owl 0 Ring-necked Duck 0 Killdeer 0 Northern Hmk Owl 0 Greater Scaup 0 Barred <>wl 0 Lesser Scaup AVOCETS 0 (;reat Gray Owl 0 Bufflehc;1d 0 American Avocet 0 I.ong-earcciOwl ADDITIOhAL SPECIEiS WEB SITE: www.mnbirdtrail.com G HOTL;INE: 1-800-433-1888 I

Bemidji Brainerd Duluth Fergus Falls Marshall New Ulm Rocheste

1999/2000 Minnesota Wetland Repor

PUBLISHED BY THE MINNESOTA BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RE

Helping Minnesota’s Local Governments Manage and Conserv Their Irreplaceable Water and Soil Resources 199912000 Minnesota Wetland Report

This report includes information from: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Transportation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Printed October 2001 by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, One West Water Street, Suite 200, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55107. (651) 296-3767. FAX: (651) 297-5615. TTY: (800) 627-3529. www.bwsr.state.mn.us. This report was prepared by Natasha DeVoe under the direction of John Jaschke.

The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources is an equal opportunity employer.

This report meets the requirement in the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act for an annual report to the Legislature on the status of implementation of state laws and programs relating to wetlands, including information on the quantity, quality, acreage, types and public value of wetlands in the state. This is the fourth report prepared under this mandate of the act. Material contained in this report is available in an alternative format upon request. For additional copies of the 1999/2000 Minnesota Wetland Report, contact BWSR at the address given above.

This report combines data from both 1999 and 2000. Estimated cost of preparing this report using existing data is $32,880. This estimate includes BWSR staff time, printing and mailing costs; initial data collection is not included in the cost estimate.

Oct. 200111,000 copies TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 1

11. INTRODUCTION ...... 3

111. THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT IN 1999 AND 2000 ...... 4 A. OVERVIEW OF THE 1999 AND 2000 NUMBERS ...... B. ADDITIONALWCA ASPECTS...... BI. Road Replacement ...... B2. Regulatory Simplification ...... B3. Planning ...... I I C. WETLANDBANKING ...... 15 D. WCA FINANCING...... 18 E. WCA ENFORCEMENT...... F. WCA APPEALS...... 20 IV. OTHER PROGRAMS ...... 21 A. STATE PROGRAM ...... A I. Reinvest in Minnesotii (RIM) Reserve Programs...... ‘42. Perinunent Wetland Preserves (PWP) Prograin.,...... 23 A3. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)...... 24 A4. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) ...... B. FEDERALPKOGKAMS ...... BI. St. Paul District, Army Corps of Engineers (COE)...... 82. US. Fish and Willl$e Service (USFWS), Department of the 1 B3. Natural Resources Conservation Service riculture ...... 29 c. NONPROFITAND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS ...... 29 V. TRENDS IN LOSSES OF WETLANDS: NAT’L AND STATE DATA COLLECTION...... 30 A. NATIONALREPORTS ...... 30 B. WETLANDNUMBERS FOR MI ...... 32 C. FURTHERANALYSIS NEEDS...... 33 VI. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY ...... 34 A. SCIENTISTSAND COMMUNITYINVOLVEMENT ...... B. WETLAND ASSESSMENTUSING BIOLOGICINDICES AND CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS. C. MINNESOTANATIVE VEGETATION GUIDE ...... VII. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF SWANCC ON MINNESOTA WETLANDS...... 37

VIII. NATIONAL VIEWPOINT: WETLAND MITIGATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL ...... 40

IX. APPENDIX ...... 43 I. Executive Summary

As part of the full implementation of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in 1994, the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) began to track the Act’s effects on wetland gains and losses in the state, as well as the effects of other state, federal, and local programs. Each year, significant developments impact wetland monitoring and new trends emerge.

The numbers collected from 1999 and 2000 support an ongoing trend of WCA serving as a deterrent to projects impacting wetlands. For these two years, about 41 percent of initial landowner inquiries about draining or filling wetlands 41 % of initial resulted in project revision to avoid wetlands. Several local drainhill WCA managers report informally that potential draidfill projects are avoided even before a landowner walks in the inquiries resulted door. The growing awareness of WCA regulations is causing in total avoidance landowners to consider avoiding existing wetlands even of wetlands. before they finish planning a project. This continues to be one of the Act’s most important successes.

Although the number of acres drained or filled each year for WCA-regulated projects varies between about one and three hundred acres, required mitigation always replaces the impacts with more acres than have been lost. Replacement is required via approved plans when wetland draining or filling is unavoidable. Some replacement is performed on-site; otherwise, credits may be purchased from the State Wetland Bank.

The Minnesota State Wetland Bank maintains accounts for private credit transactions. Because WCA-regulated replacement is mandated at a 2: 1 ratio in much of replacement results in the state, wetland impacts replaced through the bank result in a net gain of wetland acres. In a net gain of wetland addition to quantity, BWSR works with other state acres.

Tracking WCA and other natural resource program numbers is done largely via the Local Government Annual Reporting System (LARS). Implemented widely in 1998, LARS streamlined statewide data collection, although reporting of local efforts in some categories remains subjective and, in others, incomplete. These inefficiencies, together with a desire to utilize advances in digital technology, prompted BWSR to form a Blue Ribbon Electronic Commerce Committee of local authorities and BWSR staff and

199912000 MN Wetland Report specialists. This committee recommended, and BWSR has begun, developing a new system to take special advantage of web availability and GIS technology. BWSR plans to inaugurate this system with the 2003 reporting year.

The Road Replacement Program has been popular with local road authorities whose

replacement needs. Although the economies of scale Road Replacement, and other efficiencies are clear, continued funding has been uncertain because it requires annual favored by local renewal. The legislature approved $2 million during authorities and the 2001 special session to fund the program through environmental interests, the end of fiscal year 2002. Wetland replacement for the roads program required about 733 acres for mid­ requires about 160 1996 through 1998, 180 for 1999, and 162 for 2000 acres per year.

(an average of about 160 acres per year). r

BWSR and other state agencies make ongoing efforts to ease compliance with wetland regulations, both at the state level and between the state and federal governments. In particular, BWSR has made progress implementing recommendations outlined in the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan’, as well as the Wetland Mitigation Banking Study completed in 1998. One such accomplishment is the completion of the Native Vegetation guide (see Part V1.C.). Another is a single, joint local/state/federal application form for wetland-related projects of all kinds. Banking and Road Replacement forms are available on the web, as is the list of available banking credits and information about other aspects of the WCA program: www.bwsr.state.mn.us.

Another key development was the introduction in January 2000 of a new letter of permission (LOP) process for wetland permitting by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, replacing the old nationwide pemiitting process. The LOP uses many of the standards contained in WCA, meaning that a project permitted through WCA will generally also be permitted through the Army Corps of Engineers.

’ Minnesota WeNands Conservation Plan, Version 7.0,1997, Minnesota DNR, St. Paul, Minnesota. Available at: www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_and_wildlife/wetlands/wetlandscn.htrnl

1999/2000 MN Wetland Report TI. Introduction

Wetland Conservation Act

In 1991, reacting to public concern about Minnesota’s disappearing wetlands, the Minnesota Legislature approved (and Governor Arne Carlson later signed) the Wetland Conservation Act. Considered one of the most comprehensive wetland laws in the country, it recognizes a number of wetland benefits deemed important:

0 Water quality benefits, including filtering pollutants out of surface water and groundwater, using nutrients that would otherwise pollute public waters, trapping sediments, protecting shoreline, and recharging groundwater supplies;

0 Floodwater and storm water retention benefits, including reducing the potential for flooding in the watershed;

0 Public recreation and education benefits, including hunting and fishing areas, wildlife viewing areas, and nature areas; Commercial benefits, including wild rice and cranberry growing areas, and aquaculture areas; Fish and wildlife benefits; Low-flow augmentation benefits during times of drought; and Other public uses.

To retain these benefits and reach the legislation’s goal of no-net-loss of wetlands, the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) requires anyone proposing to drain or fill a wetland first to try to avoid disturbing the wetland; second, to try to minimize any impact on the wetland; and, finally, to replace any lost wetland acres, functions, and values. (This process is called sequencing in the law.) Certain wetland activities are exempt from the Act, allowing projects with minimal impact or projects located on land where certain pre­ established land uses are present to proceed without regulation.

Local government units (LGUs)-cities, counties, watershed management organizations, soil and water conservation districts, and townships-implement the Act locally. The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) administers the Act statewide, and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) enforces it.

The Wetland Conservation Act took effect with an interim program in 1992 and became fully effective in January 1994. The Legislature approved several significant changes to WCA in 1996; additional changes are anticipated in 2002. With experience and improved data collection pointing the way, legislators, state and federal agency personnel, local governments, and interest groups work to fine-tune the balance between resource protection and land development options.

The law allows for differences in Minnesota’s geography by dividing the state into three sections: a section that has more than 80 percent of its original wetlands remaining, which tends to be northern and northeastern Minnesota; a section with between 50 percent and 80 percent of its original wetlands remaining, which tends to be central Minnesota; and a

1999/2000 MN Wetland Report P.3 section with less than 50 percent of its original wetlands remaining, which tends to be southern and northwestern Minnesota (see figure). Wetlands are considered “original” if present at the time of statehood in 1858.

Each of these geographic areas is treated somewhat differently in the law. In addition, in some instances the law treats the Twin Cities metropolitan area and greater Minnesota differently, due to their vastly different development climates.

This report contains Wetland Conservation Act information reported by local governments as well as state and some federal agencies for calendar years 1999 and 2000. Some data from previous years are included to show trends.

111. The Wetland Conservation Act in 1999 and 2000

A. Overview of the 1999 and 2000 numbers

In general, the numbers indicate that WCA continues to protect Minnesota wetlands. Of 16,609 WCA-related contacts with landowners reported by local authorities, 41 percent (6,776) were ultimately resolved with no disturbance at all to a wetland. These projects, as originally proposed, would have drained or filled an estimated 9,914 acres of wetlands (see Appendix C). Local authorities report anecdotal evidence that word-of-mouth and personal experience have educated many landowners about the value of wetlands to the State and the role of WCA in their protection.

After avoidance, minimizing the draining and filling of wetlands is one key to the success of Minnesota’s no-net-loss goal. Although difficult to track, the numbers indicate Percentage of WCA-Regulated Wetland Impacts by Size (2000 data) that in 2000, as in past years, many projects impacting wetlands were small, I 0.21 - 0.5 affecting less than 0.2 acres of wetlands. However, the number of projects with larger impact sizes has increased. More than half of projects now have impacts of greater than 0.2 acres (see figure). Minimizing these larger projects will keep wetlands as intact as possible. 45% G-

1999/2000MN Wetland Report P. 4 While the effects of small wetland projects are not as noticeable, their cumulative impact is significant. Small 66 impacts on larger wetlands disturb the soil and open Consequences windows to invasion by exotic and aggressive plants. of habitat Even when their acreage is replaced, total destruction of fragmentation small wetlands leaves remaining wetland areas more isolated. are more severe than previously Recent research’ suggests that a watershed requires three to seven percent of its area to be wetland for adequate th~ught.”~ flood control and water quality protection. A tendency to consolidate wetlands during urban development hampers wetland function and, the authors suggest, presents a “marginal value” paradox: as development encroaches on wetlands, the value of their aesthetic qualities increases until pollution and drainage result in functional loss.

Minor encroachments can add up to significant wetland losses through activities that require no approvals or permits, making them impossible to track with any degree of accuracy. Such losses include:

Exemptions from the Wetland Conservation Act. The 1996 legislative amendments expanded some of the exemptions, most notably: i) the de minimis exemption, which now ranges from 400 square feet to a maximum of 10,000 square feet per project and which can be deducted from the amount of wetland to be replaced; and ii) several agricultural exemptions for drainage projects to improve land for crop production. 0 Exemptions and nationwide permits not requiring mitigation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Federal Section 404 Program. 0 Non-agricultural wetland impacts approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for farm program participants.

0 Unreported violations of all programs. I The exemptions granted by WCA ExemptionslReplacements LGUs are tracked in the LARS [LGU-reported data] database; these amounted to over 1,800 acres in the two-year g 2000 2 1500 period 1999/2000. WCA­ ’c :1000 related impact and replacement a 500 data do not track acreage lost E due to exemptions, however. $ 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 p Many, if not most, WCA­ E exempt losses are not recorded HWCA-regulated WCA-exempt* B9 8 because they require no al L * May be subject to federal requirements. 2

199912000MN Wetland Report P.5 approval by local or state authorities and only when a landowner requests it will a local government issue a formal exemption. These incomplete data reported by LGUs indicate that exempt wetland impacts have the potential to wipe out the slight acreage gain from the 2: 1 replacement that is required for most other impacts (see figure, previous page).

One recent research study4concluded that, since minimal wetland density is essential, smaller wetlands should be protected outright. That study proposed a minimum protection standard of one acre, Le., if a wetland is less than an acre, no impacts should be allowed. The provisions in WCA attempt to strike a balance of private property rights on one hand and, on the other, the protection of the environment as a public resource.

Although WCA directs that avoidance and minimization should come first in the sequence of addressing projects near wetlands, some projects do have unavoidable wetland impacts. These require wetland replacement via approved replacement plans. Project sponsors replaced almost 500 acres in 1999 and 378 acres in 2000 (see figure). This count of project-specific replacement does not include bank purchases, which are discussed in Section III.C., or acres replaced by the state on its projects and on behalf of local government public road authorities, discussed in Part 1II.B.

Wetland restoration is an evolving WCA-Related Wetland Replacement 1 science with complex constraints unique to each site. Theories about developing plant and animal communities that can survive in changing climatic conditions are still being explored and success is, in many cases, uncertain for several years.' In some cases, purchasing 4 1997 1998 1999 2000 E replacement credits at an established ....J bank site with a wide buffer zone ? El Drainedlfilled Replaced .x may be preferable to squeezing new wetland into a developing area.

Whether replaced on-site or via banking, the continued enforcement of WCA leaves local authorities with more replacement sites to track every year. Monitoring is not tracked in the LARS database. The local information system now in development will provide a mechanism for tracking site data; the issue of which data, beyond total acreage, to monitor, and for how long, remains unresolved. One recent study' of 40 Minnesota wet meadows suggests that careful monitoring of shifts in vegetation might better indicate ecosystem stress than traditional measures as water pollutant levels. This would take less time than field visits for hydrologic assessment. Although such research is advancing the field of study, there is, as yet, no scientific standard and little public funding for collecting quantitative information on wetland functions.

' Wetland loss and biodiversity conservation. JP Gibbs. 2000. Conservation Biology 14(1): 314-17. Progress in wetland restoration ecology, JB Zedler. 2000. Trends in Ecology 8 Evolution. 15(10): 402-407. ' The vegetation of wet meadows in relation to their landuse. SM Galatowitsch et al. 2000. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 60(2): 121-44.

199912000 MN Wetland Report P. 6 Monitoring is not the only local activity left uncounted by any current reporting system. Local WCA officials may spend many hours on conservation projects that get cancelled, either because of infeasibility or lack of landowner interest or funding. Other work that goes uncounted includes field checks of wetland delineation reports and bank plan proposals that may or may not end up with deposit of credits in the state Wetland Bank.

Just counting the work is, in itself, work and for some counties this task is more onerous than others. As part of our continuing effort to serve the needs of local government, BWSR has begun an upgrade to LARS that will account for more actual practice in an efficient, web-based design. Completion of planning, building, and implementing the system is scheduled for the 2003-reporting year.

In the meantime, some indicators of local government WCA workload and activity appeared to drop from 1997 to 1998; then, after two similar years, these indicators rose again in 2000 (see figure). Landowner contacts (i.e., the number of phone calls or visits a local government gets from different landowners WCA Activity [I997-2000] considering projects inipact iiig wetlands), the 1 12,000 number of no loss I ' determinations, technical evaluation panel 8,000 -v) II Landowner decisions, and cease and 12 6,000 Contacts desist orders issued 15 4,000 +LGU Activity* increased, as did the I 1 2,000 number of completed, m8, 0) WCA-related restoration Q 0 I\ projects. [For more ~S 1997 1998 1999 2000 'a'Q infoniiatioii about local 'a *Includes No-Loss& TEP determinations and activity, see Appendix E.] I: Cease & Desist and Restoration orders.

State and local wetland staff will consider new research, current commitment, and potential funding as they address the wetland assessment challenge in the next two years. Proposed WCA amendments should help to bring the rules up to date with current scientific understanding and to simplify implementation among the various responsible local, state, and federal entities.

Local, state, and federal contact information is available at the following website: www.shorelandmanagement.org/contact. Local authorities are listed by county for easier reference.

199912000 MN Wetland Report P. 7 B. Additional WCA Aspects

61. Road Replacement

As part of the 1996 amendments to WCA, BWSR assumed the responsibility from local governments for replacing wetlands lost through repair and rehabilitation of existing roads throughout the state. Replacement in most areas of the state must take place at a 2:l ratio (two wetland acres replaced for every one lost); in the counties with more than 80 percent of their original wetlands remaining, the replacement ratio is 1:1. Replacement as close as possible to the geographic location as well as the wetland type are priorities in the Road Replacement Program. In addition, wetlands lost in the seven-county metropolitan area must be replaced in the seven-county metro area. Appendix D-5 shows a map of where and how much replacement is required.

Since the provision was approved mid-way through 1996, approximately 588 acres of wetlands have been lost due to local government road repair, making BWSR responsible for about 733 acres of wetland replacement. The required replacement average over the 4% years is 164 acres per year.

Local road authorities have reduced the required replacement total by doing site-specific replacement of about 114 acres (see figure). Of the 40 site specific replacement projects accomplished, only three accounted for more than four acres: just under 40 acres were replaced by St. Louis County for two road projects in 1999, and another 13 acres by Itasca County in 2000.

Road Impacts and Replacement Strategies

250

g 200 State Replacement Responsibility ,,-3 150 0 Direct Replacement 5 100 E Site Impacts 2 50

0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Because of limited funding and time involved in purchasing easements and physically restoring a wetland, the Road Replacement Program is currently operating at a deficit, i.e., not all of the required wetland replacement is established on the ground. Currently, about 344 acres of wetlands have been replaced; BWSR has another 1,363 acres in development (see Appendix 0-4).

1999/2000 MN Wetland Report The Road Program’s largest project is a joint BWSR/MnDOT/DNR site in Polk County. The project involves the restoration of 135 wetlands on an 1,800 acre tract of land. Due to the size of the project, it is being done in three phases over a three-year period. When complete, it will yield approximately 1,300 acres of credit of which 549 will be allocated to the BWSR Road Replacement Program.

Currently, BWSR is focusing on meeting replacement needs for the program on a regional basis and on the basis of type, rather than on a watershed or county basis. Eventually, BWSR hopes to change the program so that wetland losses and replacements are judged and balanced on a statewide, rather than regional basis. This would allow for more constructive replacement based on actual wetland type and function.

Comparing the map of local road credits required (Appendix D-5) to the BWSR replacement sites (Appendix D-4), it is apparent that replacements for impacts are especially needed in the mid-southwest and the area between the Twin Cities and Duluth metropolitan areas. Additional road impacts in the mid-southem region also are mounting. Although there are many drained wetlands in the < 50% area of the state, the road program competes with CREP and federal conservation programs for restorable land. In 2001 and 2003, the program will focus on restoration projects in the southwestern portion of Minnesota and select metropolitan-area counties.

In planning replacement, BWSR attempts to match both for location across the state and for wetland type (for a description of wetland types, see Appendix I>. Most road impacts are wet meadows (Type 2). Shallow marshes (Type 3) and shrub swamps (Type 6) are also impacted more than other types (see figure, below). This is due to the prevalence of these types of wetlands in the landscape, as well as the relative ease of filling areas that do not hold standing water for much of the growing season. Also, an unwillingness to fill deep marshes due to their aesthetic appeal cannot be dismissed.

Wetland Type Comparison

Required Road Replacement BWSR-Owned Acres TY Pe 8 Type7 2% Type 1 Type 1

TY Pe 2 2 32% sa -? $ <: 4 23% 48%

199912000 MN Wetland Report Many restorations include Type 3 wetland, but other types are not as popular; they take more time to establish, are less conventionally attractive, or, because of the sporadic nature of climate, are less certain to hold water long enough to count as viable wetland credit. The tendency to replace wetlands of one type with wetland of another type is called type-exchange. That type-exchanges have a greater impact on wetlands at the drier end of the spectrum is supported by recent research.’ As discussed in the next section (III.C.), however, including upland buffer area in the replacement mix helps to ensure a stable, quality wetland site regardless of wetland type.

BWSR has pursued road impact replacement using various strategies. One strategy is to form partnerships with state and local agencies to develop joint replacement sites. Another strategy involves obtaining easements from private landowners who have restored wetlands and submitted qualifying projects. The third strategy is to purchase credits from existing entrepreneurial accounts.

To date, $9.35 million has been provided to fund the program in four appropriations. Most of the funding is in the forni of capital bonding. Much of the 1998 general fund capital appropriation was used to purchase existing wetland credits since capital bonding currently cannot be used for credit purchases.

In 2000, BWSR, state, and federal agencies cooperated to develop a combined application fomi that simplifies the permit and approval process for road repair. Local road authorities now 1511 out only one forni, rather than a unique set of paperwork for each agency involved.

82. Regulatory Simplification

Since the inception of the Wetland Conservation Act, regulatory simplification has been a topic of great debate. Several agencies presently regulate a myriad of wetland-related activities in the state. The multiple agency system has been confusing at times for the regulated public. As part of the Interagency Wetland Committee, BWSR has worked in cooperation with other state and federal agencies to develop strategies for regulatory simplification.

111January 2000, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers introduced a new letter of permission (LOP) process to replace the nationwide permit process. The Corps has responsibility for implementation of Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, which regulates the filling of wetlands. Because the LOP uses many of the standards contained in WCA, a project permitted through WCA will generally also be permitted through the Corps. This increases predictability for landowners applying for a state/federal permit. Additionally, the landowner may apply to the Corps directly through their local government. This removes the duplicative application process that landowner/citizens often face now for

’Ecological issues related to wetland preservation, restoration, creation, and assessment. DR Whigham. 1999. Science of the Total Environment 240(1-3): 31-40.

1999/2000MN Wetland Report p. 10 the same project. For more information about Corps activities, see their website at: www.mvp.usace. army.mil.

Simplification has been achieved with the state wetland banking program, as well. The Interagency Banking Committee is responsible for guiding general bank policy and meets several times a year to discuss specific project proposals. As part of an effort to streamline project work, the Corps and BWSR have developed a process to provide both state and federal approval of wetland banking sites. An applicant using a site that satisfies both WCA replacenient and Section 404 mitigation requirements would comply with both state and federal replacement requirements without additional paperwork.

B3. Planning

Conipreherisive Wetland Protection and hlaiiagernent Plans

Recent research points out that the shift of wetlands to open water systems (Types 3, 4, and 5 wetland) is a national trend that is "likely the results of resource managers and regulators making decisions on a case-by-case basis."' To combat this trend, local planners must make environmental resource decisions at a landscape level before land development projects are proposed.

Under the 1996 WCA changes, local units of government may develop a Comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plan as an alternative to following parts of the state WCA rules. These plans allow increased flexibility in wetland replacement, specifically in the location of the replacement site, the replacement ratio, and the "sequencing" process (meaning the sequence by which the landowner must first try to avoid the wetland; second, try to minimizc any impact on the wetland; and finally, replace any unavoidable wetland losses). Plans are updated every 5 or 10 years. r---, ------","_I.._." ___"-___ll".~ Local governments develop and carry oui I water management plans at the county "Decisions about the fate of and watershed levels to protect and I enhance surface water, groundwatcr and i wetlands in an area are related land resources given local ! often made on a site- conditions, priorities and available resources. Local water planning strives i specific basis so that to: cumulative impacts related make local water management a i I to mitigation or land-use high priority; build local expertise and 1 change are not considered inanagenient capacity; or go unnoticed? 0 identify fLtture problems and i prevent them; I.-.,.,-."..".. l.ll_l-"--__^_l"l"~ I"___ I",

' Evaluating the effects of wetland regulation through HGM classification and landscape profiles. Gwin SE, Kentula ME, PW Shaffer. 1999. Wetlands 19(3): 477-89. Forward. 1999. Wetlands 19(3).

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 11 take a comprehensive approach; lead responsibility at the local level; and foster state and local partnerships.

With regard to wetlands, most plans require 1) maps of wetlands identified under the National Wetlands Inventory, where available; 2) a summary of plans for wetlands with controlled outlets, such as plans for water-level draw downs; 3) a description of the United States Corps of Engineers, Section 404 permit requirements affecting county waters; and 4) the implications of wetlands for present and future water uses with special consideration for water quality, flood attenuation, wildlife, and recreation, and an assessment of those implications.

In addition, the following drainage information is presented in the plans: (1) a table listing the public drainage systems in the county and the amounts expended, by year, for repair work on each system; (2) an assessment of any significant water quality and quantity effects due to public or private ditch systems; and (3) a summary of any known water quality and quantity information from engineering reports and modeling efforts on ditches in the county.

Both urban and rural communities can benefit from planning. A study in Oregon found that farmed, not urban, wetlands were more often impacted. This rural impact was surmised to be due primarily to intensification, rather than expansion, of agricultural activities on existing agricultural land." However, wetland losses to farming, significant as they may be, are less permanent than losses to urbanization. Local decision-makers can take known trends such as this into account when developing long-term goals appropriate for their communities. Formal plans make it easier for all stakeholders to predict how regulations will affect development.

Recognizing the importance of planning in resource protection, BWSR encourages local efforts through funding, support, and, if the plan is approved, greater flexibility in WCA regulation. Funding is provided through a competitive Challenge Grant process. Also, working in conjunction with the regional Board Conservationists, a trained planning specialist will assist with local planning efforts.

In Minnesota, I5 local governments are developing model Comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plans using at least some BWSR funding. An additional 15 are pursuing plans without funding from BWSR. Final approval has been given to 10 of the funded plans as well as an additional five that did not receive BWSR funding. BWSR has approved plans from five counties (Cass, Koochiching, Lake, St. Louis, and Beltrami) in northern Minnesota and four communities (Bloomington, Burnsville, Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, and Rosemount) in the Twin Cities.

Recent wetlands trends (1981/82-1994)in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, USA. J Burner!, et al. 1999. Wetlands 19(3): 545-59.

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 12 Four local governments developing model plans are not seeking BWSR approval, including the city of Chanhassen, which is implementing WCA and using a 1994 ordinance to regulate wetland setbacks and buffers. The cities of Baxter and Lakeville, and Aitkin, Mille Lacs, and Clay counties are starting the process. See Appendix E or, for an up-to-date map showing the status of county water plan expiration dates, see the local water planning program page on the BWSR website: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/programs/major/99Iwrpmp/cntywaterplan.pdf

Local Planning/National Partnership (NEMO)

A national land use planning effort coordinated through University of Connecticut Extension has several pilot projects in two regions of Minnesota: Lake Superior and the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. This program coordinates workshops that enable elected officials to preserve water quality while accommodating economic growth through planning. In areas with an approved local water plan already in place, the aim is to integrate that plan into active operations, first by motivating elected officials to dedicate the effort and then by giving community development decision makers access to information supplied by natural resource protection technology.

Originally called Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO), the program has received startup funding for two years from the Metropolitan Council and may be sustained another three years by a grant from the McKnight Foundation. The NEMO slogan, “Linking Town Hall to Technology,” reflects their focus on using modern tools to educate local decision-makers about natural resource-based land use planning. NEMO conducts research through the NASA Regional Earth Science Applications Center.

Exploratory NEMO workshops held in 2000 and 2001 attracted over 150 attendees. The University of Minnesota Extension, University of Wisconsin Extension, Minnesota Sea Grant, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Erosion Control Association, and the Duluth Superior Area Community Foundation cosponsored these initial workshops, which were held in South Lake Superior and in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. More information about NEMO is available at the website: http://nemo.uconn.edu.

Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan

At the request of the State Non Point Source Project Coordination Team, the interagency wetland group developed a wetland section for the Minnesota 2000 Nonpoint Source Management Plan (NPSMP). Prior to this time, no section on wetlands had been included in the statewide management plan. Focusing on wetlands as state water resources will facilitate federal funding for future nonpoint source pollution management projects. Development of the wetland section in the NPSMP was based largely on the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan (see below). The 2000 NPSMP wetlands section includes nine goals and 74 action planning milestones for combating nonpoint source pollution impacts to Minnesota wetlands. [www.pca.state.mn.us/water/nonpoint]

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 13 The Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan

In 1997, Minnesota completed a multi-agency effort to develop a statewide Wetlands Conservation Plan. The project began in 1993 in response to concerns about wetland management processes, such as permitting, state policies, and methods to achieve the state’s goal of no net loss of wetlands. It presents ways to adapt existing administrative structures and programs in more effective and efficient ways and is expected to support, not to replace, local water and wetland plans prepared on a watershed-basis.

The plan makes recommendations in four basic areas of the state’s wetland management system: regional management, regulatory simplification, education, and outreach. State and federal agencies and local governments continue to use the plan to provide policy guidance. [http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish~and~wildlife/wetlands/wetlandscon.html]

Water Management Unification Initiative

The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board is leading the Water Management Unification Initiative, started by the Ventura administration. The intent of the initiative is to make Minnesota’s complex water management system more understandable, efficient and responsive to citizens. It aims to improve Minnesota’s water management by better focusing, coordinating, and unifying efforts through common goals and objectives and by measuring progress. The planning began with the September 2000 publication of Minrzesotu Wutennnrks: Gaugirzg the Flow of Pvogress 2000-2010. This outlines four statewide goals: 1) improve water quality, 2) conserve the diverse characteristics of state waters, 3) restore and maintain healthy aquatic ecosystems, and 4) provide diverse recreational opportunities. Basin-specific objectives and indicators to measure progress are included, as well. [see www.mnplan.state.mn.us]

1999l2000 MN Wetland Report p. 14 C. Wetland Banking

The Minnesota Wetland Banking Program, first offered in 1994, continues to provide an effective and relatively convenient avenue for wetland replacement. Under the program, landowners draining or filling wetlands have the option to purchase wetland “credits” resulting from previously restored or created wetlands, rather than finding and restoring wetland acres on their own.

From the time the program began through December 2000, approximately 2,000 acres have been deposited. Wetland restorations from approximately 37 counties have been enrolled in the program (see Wetland Bank Deposits Appendix F-I). Deposits to the (through Dec. 2000) wetland bank are fundamental to its success; withdrawals are crucial to encouraging landowners to make those deposits. During 1999 and 2000, withdrawals from the bank continued at a rate similar to previous years: about 72 and 93 acres withdrawn, respectively. 1993- 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 Deposits have dropped off in the g:export/alldep.xls last two years: there were 305 acres deposited in 1999 and 169 acres deposited in 2000 (see figure). Local governments may establish their own accounts as they seek to replace impacts for municipal development projects, including new roads that do not fall under the BWSR replacement program. Almost 300 acres of all credit transactions have been transfers of existing credits to new account holders, rather than replacement for immediate impacts.

About 650 acres of credits have Wetland Impact Totals been purchased or used for Replaceable through Wetland Bank replacement, leaving a balance of Iabout 1,200 acres (about 850 of those are available for purchase by the public). Bank replacements for HBWSR impacts average a ratio of about Private 1.5:1; this average includes projects IUl MnDOT in the >SO% area replaced at a 1 :1 ratio.

Private individuals are not the primary landowners replacing 1997 1998 1999 2000 wetland impacts through the ti :~~,etr.ep/~nnkrintn/nllchrr.s.xls1 wetland bank (see chart). BWSR has purchased 285 acres for the local road program (for more about these credits, see Section 11I.B-2).The Minnesota Department of Transportation is the banking system's second biggest customer, buying over 235 Wetland Credits Purchased acres of credits. Other public entities, such (through Dec. 2000) as municipal governments, purchased about 200 acres. Private purchasers account for 190 acres of credits purchased through 2000. Most of these purchases were for small amounts, however, so that although private transactions are responsible for a small percentage of the acres of credits purchased, they make up most of the transactions (see pie charts). h:wetrep:newbnnkrlntn..~is

One of the challenges faced by the Number of Transactions by Wetland Bank is encouraging Landowner Type entrepreneurs to restore bank sites. Wetland impacts must be replaced within or adjacent to the same county or watershed, to reduce the local environmental impact of Gvm't" Private' 19% wetland destruction, so it is 62% important to local development to have bank sites located across the state. Recently, the rule was loosened from a stricter same- county or same-watershed Individuals and Private Partnerships Other2% \BWSR Municipal, Federal, and other State Agencies 4% replacement requirement, in order to ease the hardship imposed on developing areas. This rule has always been less restrictive in the northern region because of the large number of pre-statehood wetlands remaining there.

In general, replacement purchases occur near impacts. On the statewide map of bank- mitigated impacts (Appendix 0-2),most impacts occur along a diagonal from northwest to southeast Minnesota, with a scattering of sites in the northern counties. Compare this to replacement purchases (Appendix 0-3)that localize the scatter while following the same northwest-to-southeast diagonal trend, which roughly traces the paths of Interstate 94 and Highway 10.

St. Louis County, with many scattered impacts, shows a strong tendency to localize replacement; with > 80% counties able to buy credits anywhere in the state, many of these St. Louis County impacts were replaced by credits from Aitkin County sites.

In addition to monitoring the spread of site location, it is also crucial to encourage a diversity of sites. There is no longer a penalty for replacing wetland of one type with wetland of another type. Because BWSR is the biggest customer of credit sales,

199912000MN Wetland Report p. 16 however, the commitment to match for type on Road Program impacts should provide adequate incentive for a variety of wetland type restorations. [AppendixI contains descriptions of the various wetland types.]

Statewide, wet meadow and shallow marsh (types 2 and 3 wetlands) make up most of the restored acres deposited since the bank opened. Deep marsh and wooded bottomland (types 4 and 6) wetlands comprise a small portion (10 percent) of the banked wetland portfolio, but there are no types 5, 7, 8, or Riverine wetlands (see chart).

Upland buffer areas are crucial to wetland functioning and make up a portion of the banked acres. One recent study" reports that the 500 meters immediately around the wetland is the strongest land use Available Wetland Bank Credits by factor relating to plant community Wetland Type and Entity composition. Another study" shows that buffer zones remove significant amounts of nutrients before they pollute the wetland. Areas restored as upland buffer may only be applied to the portion of the replacement ratio above the 1 :1 minimum.

The cost of wetland credits continues to vary greatly, depending upon location, land value, size, and the cost 'Yof the restoration construction. 100 200 300 400 Wetland banking credits range from Number of Acres Deposited (Cumulative) about $1,500 to $20,000 per acre; the El Private Entity .Public* Entity price may be even higher in some * Includes local government & highway authorities as well as areas of the metropolitan area. The MnDOT. collected data indicates an average cost of about $5,900 per credit. As cost data is not required to be reported, this average is based on limited data: 36 transactions for a total of 27 acres, a fraction of the actual transactions.

BWSR relies on local government authorities to carry out WCA regulations, including requiring purchasers of wetland credits to supply complete site information about the impact site. In Washington State, a site-by-site evaluation of compensatory mitigation program projects found mediocre compliance with planned implementation and poor achievement of performance standard^.'^ An inventory of Indiana mitigation sites showed that inconsistency was a problem, both in requirements and in the application of

" The vegetation of wet meadows in relation to their landuse. SM Galatowitsch, et al. 2000. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 60(2): 121-44. I' Buffered wetlands in agriculturallandscapes in the Prairie Pothole region. DH Rickerl, L Janssen, R Woodland. 2000. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 55(2): 220-25. " Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study; Phase 1: Compliance. PA Johnson et al. 2000. Washington State Department of' Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Progruni. 00-06-016.

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 17 the requirements.I4 In Minnesota, consistency has improved since the early days of the program, as LGUs and BWSR gain experience with the program. Bank site quality has iniproved as local, state, and federal agencies have placed more scrutiny on compliance with bank plans and specifications. In the past two years, new restrictions and covenants documents that clarify appropriate construction, vegetation, and use of banked wetlands have been put in place.

D. WCA Financing

A variety of local units of government-cities, towns, counties, soil and water conservation districts, and watershed management organizations-administer WCA locally. Local matching funds complemented 1999 state funding of $1.73 million (allocated to counties as part of the Natural Resources Block Grant). Together, state and local funds provided the program with $3.46 million at the local level. In 2000, state funding was $1.68 million. Local government funding matched this for total program funding of $3.35 million (see chart).

This funding, combined with BWSR WCA Financing support in training and in serving on local technical evaluation panels, allowed local

I_ I I_ -- governments to implement the program 7 I cost-effectively. In many cases, WCA was incorporated or directly linked to existing planning and zoning or local water planning programs through the development of Comprehensive Wetland

I I I I I , Protection and Management Plans (see part 1998 1999 2000 B-3 of this section).

0 State Funding W LGU Matching In addition to annual LGU training m&v&nett~& sessions, BWSR provides ongoing local technical support through two wetland specialists and 15 board conservationists spread over seven regional and one metro office. Board conservationists assist local authorities in implementing WCA, applying for annual grants, and other resource conservation activities. Also, BWSR offers annual field training in wetland delineation.

l4 Indiana Wetland Compensatory Mitigation: Inventory. Final Report. JT Robb. Revised May 2000. Indiana Dept of Env. Management, prepared for US. EPA Region 5.EPA Grant # CD985482-010-1.

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 18 E. WCA Enforcement

Local government authorities implement WCA regulations with BWSR oversight, but both rely on Department of Natural Resources (DNR) conservation officers and other peace officers to enforce WCA rules. Minnesota is the only state that allows a licensed peace officer to stop questionable work in a wetland, even, if necessary, without first securing a court or administrative order. Part of the local communities, conservation officers link enforcement in the field to the day-to-day administrative work. Their involvement lends an established relationship with the court system, increases attention to violations, and often results in expeditious resolution of violations through administrative processes. Like much resource protection work, their most successful efforts go uncounted because they resolve problems proactively.

DNR has decreased the number of wetland enforcement officers in recent years; there are now four across the state, coordinating the activities of field officers, local governments, soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs), BWSR, and the courts to ensure compliance with conservation laws.

In 1999, conservation officers issued 191 cease and desist orders to stop unauthorized work in wetlands until landowners received approvals. Officers also issued at least 54 restoration orders with technical assistance from SWCDs.

~~~ ~~ In 2000, officers WCA Enforcement Trends (1995-2000) issued an estimated 288 cease and desist orders and 109 restoration orders (see OC&D Orders chart). The 2000 data is considered more accurate than previous I 150 Restoration 100 Orders years’ data, since 50 BWSR and DNR have I o developed a new method for reporting 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

~ enforcement actions.

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 19 F. WCA Appeals : WCA Appeals (1994-2000) The act has an administrative appeals provision (MN Statute 1036.2242) allowing landowners to appeal administrative decisions regarding replacement plans; landowners may not appeal technical decisions such as wetland type or boundaries. 2- I In 1999, eleven appeals were filed; I in 2000, nine appeals were filed (see graph). Most appeals involve replacement plans; others involve exemptiodno-loss decisions. The number of appeals increased in the first years after the passage of the Act.

The number of hours averaged on appeals administration by BWSR staff and BWSR Dispute Resolution Committee members was 600 in 1999 and 550 in 2000. This includes 120 hours in 1999 and 100 hours in 2000 from the Attorney General's Office. This effort has remained fairly consistent for the past four years.

* In 1998, two BWSR decisions were subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals. BWSR prevailed in one and the other was settled and dismissed.

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 20 IV. Other Programs

A. State Programs

The main state-funded program for wetland-related conservation and restoration is the Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Reserve Program. The RIM program has several components, including two federal partnerships, which are described below. All serve to protect water quality and reduce soil erosion. The other state program, Permanent Wetland Preserves, protects existing wetlands.

BWSR provides administrative support and oversight to soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs), which implement the various programs at the local level. Recent increased funding from federal program partnerships has created additional restoration opportunities that are expected to continue into 2002.

The majority of restorations are located in the prairie pothole region of the state. Since the RIM and CREP programs began in 1986, they have restored about 40,000 acres of wetlands and adjacent uplands. RIM Program Activity Appendix G-2 of this report provides yearly statistics for enrollment. Restoration numbers are reported on a fixed- enrollment year, so the number of acres actually restored in a given year will be based on the enrollments from that year and 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 the time elapsed since Sign-up Year enrollment. The 1999 and 2000 restoration numbers will likely Wetland Acres Restored +Number of Easements I increase in coming years as installed projects mature over time (see figure).

AI. Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Reserve Programs

“Regular” RIM The primary component of the RIM Reserve Program pays landowners to restore drained wetlands and adjacent uplands to their native condition. Eligible land includes cropland subject to high erosion, riparian agricultural land, pastured hillsides, and sensitive groundwater areas. In conjunction with the restoration, the state acquires a perpetual conservation easement on the land.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)/Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) As part of “Regular” RIM, CREP pays landowners to take marginal land out of production. It is a federal partnership program with each state’s unique arrangement reflecting its own environmental priorities. About 20 states participate in the program.

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 21 counties in the Minnesota River 2000 RIM Wetland Restoration

the pollution. The CREP payments 58% Wetland are a financial incentive for farmers to acres add protective buffer strips along 42% tributaries and waterways. Because CREP allows enrollment of additional h:ndevoe/lr,e/,.pi/C‘R;K/IM..rls

The Minnesota Legislature funded CREP with over $5 1.5 million in the 2001 special session, which will take full advantage of a 2: 1 federal niatchiiig grant that expires in September 2002. With the federal bump, Minnesota now has $243 million RIMKREP Enrollment available for land restoration projects, with an enrollment goal of 100,000 acres.

CREP enrollments are counted along ___~ 3500 -Wetland with “Regular” RIM enrollments. 3000 Acres Together they have secured 148 v) Enrolled $ 2500 easements on 7,505 acres of a Adjacent 2000 upland environmentally sensitive cropland enrolled 1500 acres across the state in 1999 and 131 1000 easements on 6,000 acres in 2000. The 500 wetland component of the program 0 enrolled 2,800 acres of wetland on 293 1996 1997 19981999 2000 basins in 1999, doubling the enrollment

, .s:ndevoe\wetrptVNC_RIM.xls of the previous two years due to the infusion of CREP funding (see figure at left). This number dropped slightly in 2000 to about 2,500 wetland acres on 175 basins, but is expected to increase again in the next two years.

FUM/Wetland Reserve Program The RIM/WRP program combines RIM with the federal Wetland Restoration Program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. RIM/WRP aims to restore wetlands and place them first in a 30-year WRP easement, followed by a perpetual RIM Reserve easement. Unlike wetland banking, where landowners take entrepreneurial initiative to restore wetlands with their own fiinds and then recoup the money by selling credits after the project is complete, this program supplies restoration planning expertise and funding up front as well as additional easement payments. During FY ’99-2000, the RIM/WRP partnership funded 64

1999/2000 MN Wetland Report p. 22 easements for 4,091 acres. Funding priorities have shifted to the other RIM programs, however, and no WRP easements are expected in 2001.

A2. Permanent Wetland Preserves (PWP) Program

This program, established by the Wetland Conservation Act, protects existing (not drained) wetlands through easement acquisition. Like RIM Reserve, it is administered by BWSR and implemented by the soil and water conservation districts at the local level.

Since the program began in 1992, it has acquired 276 Permanent Wetland Preserves easements, perpetually Program Activity protecting 1 1,268 acres of at-risk existing wetlands and 800 surrounding upland at a cost 700 of S6.6 million (average cost 600 ; = $600/acre). Seven PWP 500 easements were taken in 400 1999 for a total of 276 acres 300 200 of wetland and surrounding 2 upland. No funds were 2/’oo 0 allocated to this program in l o 1 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 or 2001.

1999/2000 MN Wetland Report p. 23 A3. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)

MnDOT is required to mitigate any wetland losses or impacts that occur in conjunction with state highway projects. The agency reported impacts to 61 acres with the replacement of 92 wetland acres in 1999. In 2000, MnDOT replaced impacts to 72 acres with 100 acres. From 1992 to 2000, MnDOT has impacted 414 acres and replaced them with 641. This includes repair on existing roads as well as new roads or capacity improvements.

To mitigate losses, MnDOT MnDOT: Wetland Acres Impacted purchases some credits from and Replaced (1995 - 2000) private accounts in the State Wetland Bank; the majority of replacement, however, comes from on-site I00 mitigation projects and other E* 75 restoration sites established 2 50 by MnDOT itself. In past 25 years, MnDOT has estimated 0 its wetland replacement costs I 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 at $2,500 to $203,000 per acre for urban areas and from Impacts Replacements h:ndevoe\wetrptWC~MnDOT.xls 0 W $600 to $106,000 per acre for outstatehral areas.

A4. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

Through the Public Waters Work Permit Program, the Department of Natural Resources regulates alteration of the course, current, or cross-section of types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands that are included on the Public Waters Inventory completed in the early 1980s. In general, public waters are all water basins and watercourses that meet the criteria set forth in Minnesota Statutes (Section DNR Wetland-Related Activity 103G.005, subdivision 15). Public waters wetlands include .- 50 all types 3,4, and 5 wetlands - , that are 10 acres or more in size in unincorporated areas or 2 Yi acres or more in size in incorporated areas. [From the DNR website, www.dnr.state.mn.us.] 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

h:wetrep:N&C DNR.xls

1999/2000MN Wetland Report p. 24 The PubWProtected Waters Work Permit Program in 1999 issued nine permits (see graph, previous page), authorizing impacts to 17.6 acres (mostly for public transportation projects) and requiring 48.5 acres of replacement DNR Protected Waters Permit Program: (see graph at right). In Wetland Impacts and Replacements 2000, just over one acre (1996-2000) was lost due to eight permitted program activities. Restoration or creation of 12.9 acres of mimpacts wetland mitigated this WreDlacements' 1 loss.

The DNR also is required to replace wetland impacts 1996 1997 1998 1ggg 2000 'does not include 81 acres restored independent of any resulting from its capital h:ndevoe\wetrplWC-DNR.xls impacts. in 1998 improvement projects. As in previous years, minimal impacts were reported for the 1999-2000 period: 1.77 acres impacted, replaced by 2.84 acres of banked credits.

In 1999-2000, the Wildlife and the Parks Divisions restored 163.05 wetland acres for conservation, in addition to acquiring approximately 2,000 wetland acres.

The DNR Division of Minerals staff has estimated that taconite mining activities impacted and replaced approximately 1,024 acres of wetland during the period from 1992 to 1999.

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 25 B. Federal Programs

BI. St. Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)

The COE has responsibility for implementation of Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, which regulates the filling of wetlands. In 1999, the COE took action on 1,556 permit inquiries, issuing 41 individual pennits and 1,515 nationwide or general permits.” In 2000, the COE issued 1,483 permits, including 48 individual permits, 1,067 Sect. 404 Applications (Percent by Type) 2000 nationwide or general 1 1999 permits, and 368 local-only IND permits (LOP) through a locally administered letter­ of-permission process (see Section IILB2 for more about LOP). Most perniits issued through LOP are replacing work previously 97% done through the NWP (see Permit Abbreviations: graph at right). NWP = Nationwide IND = Individual GP = General LOP = Local Only- (new in ’00)

U.S. COE Permit Activity (1997-2000)

1400 1 2000 * .-.I- Requested acres ;1200 E 1000 1500 2 a ESSSI Prmttdl Apprvd ’i; 800 1000 % impact acres

$ 600 L. Mitigated acres 11 a, E 400 500 ;200 +# Permits issued 0 0 z 1997 1998 1999 2000 h: wetrep/99_00/num berdCOE.xls

Most permitted projects are small, less than 0.5 acres (see graph, next page).

I5Figuresbased on the St. Paul District Regulatory and Analysis Management System (RAMS) database.

199912000 h4N Wetland Report p. 26 TULLOCH-In May 1999, the Supreme 1 Project Size Differences in COE Court ruled that the “Tulloch rule” was invalid, noting that it failed to draw a I Permitted Impacts (1997-2000) “bright line” between regulable 2000 c , k , I redeposit and incidental fall back. The ~ Corps and the EPA had adopted this rule in 1993 in an effort to close a loophole that allowed wetland draining by ditching, which is not regulated by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. I 0 500 1000 1500 I Sophisticated developers with special I Number of Permits equipment had been able to avoid incidental fallback from dredging; the IO< 0.5 acres 00.51>< 2.0 acres I>2.1 acres 1 ~ ~______Tulloch rule eliminated this. , -~.. .. .-

The F‘eder-ul Registed6 reported in 2001 that about 20,000 acres of wetland had been destroyed by unauthorized ditching, much of it in Virginia and North Carolina. While state authorities in North Carolina have since moved to halt drainage by stepping up enforcement of state law, Virginia authorities have not. Two states, Michigan and New Jersey, have assumed 404 permitting. In Minnesota, state regulations already restrict wetland use.

Federal response by COE and EPA officials has been to strengthen wetland protection at the state level and clarify the difference between incidental fallback and redeposit (which does fall under regulation), as well as to initiate enforcement action against activities that do still lie under agencies’ statutory authority.

B2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Department of the Interior

USFWS administers several U.S. Fish &Wildlife programs aimed at restoring Wetland Restoration and Protection wetlands on private and public lands. USFWS places high priority on projects that will benefit migratory waterfowl 4000 and strives to restore sites to a UWelland Acres condition as close as possible ~ 3000 .#of Sites 1 2000 to their former status (e.g., 1000 restoring a partially drained wetland to its pre-drainage I O 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 condition).

l6 66 Federal Register. 4549 (1/I7/01)

1999!2000 MN Wetland Report p. 27 In 1999, USFWS restored approximately 3,267 acres of wetland and adjacent habitat on a variety of public and private sites (see graph, previous page). In 2000, approximately 5,508 wetland acres were restored. Agreements on public sites are permanent; agreements on private sites generally extend for ten years.

USFWS estimates that it has temporarily and permanently restored or partially restored 55,922 acres in Minnesota since 1987 (see chart below).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Minnesota Wetland Restorations”

1987 - 2000 = 14,975 restored wetlands in Minnesota. 1987 - 2000 = 55,922 restored wetland acres in Minnesota.

The figures listed here include permanent, temporary and partial restorations completed on acres enrolled in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), on private land and on federal land holdings in Minnesota (see table)

Additionally, the agency reports that in 1999 it acquired 27 sites containing FWS Purchase vs. Easement 3,559 acres of wetlands and obtained CostlAcre 24 easements on an additional 572 acres of wetland (see graph at right). $1,200 $1,000 In 2000, it acquired 19 sites of 1,250 $800 acres and obtained 39 easements on $600 an additional 853 acres of wetland. $400 $200 Easements are less expensive than $0 outright purchase of land. Purchases Easements

”The USFWS goal is to restore wetlands, as closely as possible, to their former status. Many of the wetlands restored by the Service were in fact wetlands at the time of restoration-degraded, but they still exhibited wetland characteristics. Many were not restored “from dirt to water.” Therefore, the numbers do not reflect net wetland acres gained. For this reason, and because of the cooperative nature of USFWS programs with other public and private efforts, a very real potential exists to significantly overestimate acres restored (e.g., same wetland restoration may be counted more than once).

199912000MN Wetland Report p. 28 B3. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

In Minnesota, NRCS has restored wetland and enrolled existing wetlands in temporary and permanent easements through the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) since 1992. As of early spring 2001, WRP has recorded 181 easements with 11,920 acres. Most of these are restored wetlands.

Restoration is estimated to cost $127 per acre; additional program Wetland Type* on Recorded WRP costs bring the final average cost Easements to just over $920 per acre. These (as of May 2001) costs are rising: for the 68 Existing easements in process covering Restored A 14,634 acres, restoration costs are estimated at $304 per acre. Still, the overall cost does not rise as 7, 2% steeply, as overall program costs Existing are just over $940 per acre. Upland 2Yo In 1999 and 2000 respectively, wetlana­ nine and seven acres of wetlands 9% were restored under the mitigation provisions of the "Swampbuster" * Riparian areas are special uplands that border streams: program. lakes, and wetlands.

C. Nonprofit and Private Organizations

Many private and nonprofit conservation organizations are involved in wetland preservation and restoration projects, often by providing partnership funds on cooperative projects with state and federal programs.

Data from Ducks Unlimited (DU) indicates that as of March 1999, it had completed 372 projects involving 61,220 acres of wetlands and 17,283 acres of upland in the state. Total expenditure by DU in Minnesota for these projects is $1 1.4 million. Projects include wetland restoration, enhancement, creation, and acquisition. The majority was done in cooperation with state and federal agencies and thus the acres reported already may be included by those agencies previously listed.

The DU statewide conservation program will have been accelerated by 50 percent beginning in 1999. Also, many local sporting groups and private landowners restore or preserve wetlands for their own benefit and use. Some of this is reflected in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data for CRP and Private Lands programs reported earlier.

1999/2000 MN Wetland Report p. 29 V. Trends in Losses of Wetlands: National and State Data Collection

A. National Reports FISHAND WII,DI,IFESEwicE-The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service report, Stiitiis uncl Treticls of Wetlciiids iii the Conterrninoiis United States I986 to I997, shows the rate of wetland loss in the United States has decreased. The report to Congress, published in 2000, is required by the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. Remote sensing technology is applied to a sampling of land: more than 4,000 plots, each four square miles in area, were interpreted. Quality of wetlands is not assessed.

The Service estimates that a net of 644,000 wetland acres was lost between 1986 and 1997. This annual wetland loss rate of 58,500 acres represents an 80 percent reduction in the rate of loss from the previous period (1975-1985). Past USFWS reports had estimated net losses at about 460,000 acres per year through the mid-1970s and 290,000 acres per year through the mid-1980s.

The most recent study shows that, as in the past, forested wetlands and freshwater emergent wetlands suffer the most losses. Forested wetlands experienced the greatest decline of all wetland types, with a loss of 1.2 million acres (2.4 percent change). For the first time in the nation’s history, there are fewer than 50 million acres of forested wetlands. Freshwater emergent wetlands declined by 1 million acres (a 4.6 percent change). In contrast, open water pond areas have been increasing.

There is concern that the trend in the loss of vegetated wetlands may result in long-tenn adverse consequences, even if their loss is converted into a gain of another type of wetland. In the case of open water ponds, for instance, ponds created for aquaculture (such as catfish farms) or as water retention structures contributed to reported gains.

The loss to urban and rural development (30 and 21 percent, respectively) was about equal to the loss due to silviculture and agriculture (23 and 26 percent). Losses to urban development are more complete than those to even the most intense agricultural drainage, but also are more likely to fall under wetland regulations that require mitigation by restoration, creation, or preservation. The FWS report points out, however, that restoration of hydrologic function may not contribute to a gain in base wetland area. Since their study looked at aerial photos and was an effort only to estimate acreage gain or loss rather than quality, it had little to say regarding restoration, creation, or enhancement efforts.

NRCS-The Natural Resources Conservation Service, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, also prepares a report to Congress on the status of all soil, water, and related resources, specifically rural areas that are not federally owned. The NRCS report is based on data gathered from the Natiotinl Resources Invetitor?/. Like the FWS method of data collection, the inventory is based on aerial imagery that is interpreted and supplemented with other material. However, the different methods of handling and interpreting thc data produce such different results that the two reports “are neither comparable nor

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 30 interchangeable."'x Also, an error in the statistical software used to calculate estimates was discovered and the Inventory was revised in December 2000.

NRCS reported an average annual net loss from all sources of 32,600 acres of wetlands from 1992 to 1997. It also reports an 80 percent decrease in wetland losses. The most noticeable difference between the previous and the corrected (December 2000) estimates is in the increase in developed lands. The difference affected the estimates of rural lands, in particular, cropland, rangeland, and forestland.

Data in this report show an increase in the rate of development, including the conversion of farniland to developed land. Development was responsible for 49 percent of total wetland loss nationally, but in the Midwest, conversion to agriculture claims just over half of tlie wetland losses. The Midwest has 24 percent of the nation's wetlands, second only to tlie Southeast with 3 1 percent. More specifically, 40 percent of the Midwest's Palustrine wetlands are located in Minnesota (1 0,863 out of 27,032 acres nonfederal land).

For more details see: www.nhq.nrcs.usda.govNR1

Wetland Losses and Gains and Reasons for Conversion, by NRCS Region, 1992-1997 .I I

South Cenrral

'*Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service report, 2000: 66.

1999/2000 MN Wetland Report p. 31 The Local Picture It is important to remember that the statewide or national measure of wetland gains and losses is much less critical than that measure for a local community or watershed. Wetland protection and management at the local level can account for the unique state of the natural resources of a particular community. Without stated goals, wetland protection means little; such goals are best developed and achieved through planning efforts of local communities, with support and oversight by state and federal partners. State-level coordination helps to bridge gaps in local coverage; preserving connectivity among regional landscapes is recommended in addition to simple habitat protection.

The 1996 WCA amendments provide a “Habitat suitability for some mechanism for local governments to develop comprehensive wetland protection and species... is related to local management plans to address the unique vegetation conditions within requirements of their community. Appendix E wetlands, while suitability for shows which communities are involved in others is related to landscape wetland planning efforts and the status of their structure at larger scales.7719 work thus far. ?

B. Wetland Numbers for Minnesota

How many and what types of wetlands do we have and where are they?

1) Anderson & Craig (GrowingEnergy Crops on Minnesota ‘s Wetlands: The Land Use Perspective, 1984) determined that there are 8.8 million acres of wetlands in Minnesota, compared to 18.6 million acres of original wetlands (see Appendix H-1). The amount of original wetlands is based on 1969 Land Use and Soils Data using 40 acre parcels. Although this study is dated, it remains the only statewide estimate of original versus remaining wetlands.

The NWI is the best on aerial photography done from 1974 through 1984. The NWI maps exclude some farmed wetlands and may contain and most current inaccuracies because of land use changes. Also, there are statewide data mistakes inherent when identifying certain types of wetlands available for with remote sensing methods. Nonetheless, the NWI is the existing wetlands. best and most current statewide data available for existing

A landscape approach to conserving wetland bird habitat in the prairie pothole region of eastern South Dakota. D Naugle, R Johnson, M Estey, K Higgins. Wetlands 20(4): 581-87.

199912000MN Wetland Report p. 32 (see C. Further Analysis Needs, below) and information on obtaining versions of the NWI maps can be obtained by calling 1-800-USA-MAPS or at http://www.nwi.fws.gov. Paper copies of the NWI maps can be purchased from the Minnesota Bookstore: (800) 657-3757 or (65 1) 297-3000.

3) The NRCS ’ National Resources Inventory (discussed above) concluded that approximately 10.6 million acres of wetlands (and 3.6 million acres of water areas deeper than two meters) remain in Minnesota, compared to an original number of 20+ million acres of wetlands. The NRI data represents a statistical model accurate only at a very large scale; it is not useful for fieldwork or local planning efforts. The NRI can be accessed at http://www.nin.nrcs.usda.gov.

C. Further Analysis Needs

Although scanning the NWI photos into a computer database (number two, above) represented a giant leap forward in wetland data analysis, it is based on photography that in many cases is more than 20 years old. Updating the NWI with digital photographs is taking place on a county-by-county basis, primarily in areas of the state experiencing the greatest land use change; however, standard procedures and funding to survey the land statewide are needed.

Citizens and staff of local, state and federal governments need up-to-date information to make decisions on pending projects. Current data also might provide trend analysis capacity (in areas where the original maps were developed using methods consistent with today’s techniques).

A slow schedule to digitize soil data statewide is underway by NRCS. Until this is complete, local governments with access to data developed through local studies may use it to analyze trends, inventory drained/filled wetlands and prepare local wetland plans. Meanwhile, state efforts will focus on refinement of existing data to assess information on a variety of aspects of wetlands, including subwatersheds, eco-regions, ownership, basin size, conservation program results, and regulatory program effectiveness.

Thc annLia1, lo\\.-gradc photos by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) taken for their crop program have provided local officials with rough estimates of historic land use. The slides were often physically convenient to SWCD offices, which are co-located with FSA offices in niany areas of the state. Recently, however, FSA adopted a digital system that will require payment for use of their photographs. Also, stored slides from past years were scheduled for general destruction. In response, many SWCD offices are scanning the old slides to preserve the images or, if space exists, storing slides from selected years themselves. Also, the Borchert Map Library at the University of Minnesota has agreed to retain a reference copy of each county’s slides. [see http://map.lib.umn.edu]

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 33 VI. Community Ecology

A. Scientists and Community Involvement

In additional to complex physical characteristics that contribute to their function, wetlands have additional intrinsic social value. This issue of community involvement in wetland resources is one that involves citizens as well as scientists, politicians, and regulatory policy-makers. In recent years, several journal articles addressed the human, social aspect of wetland values and the role of the scientist as a unique stakeholder.

One such study called on the scientific community to inform the ethical debate, making their expertise available to the widest possible audience, saying, “If scientists ignore debate, they run the risk of being ignored themselves.”” An Illinois project found that local management authorities have difficulty integrating scientific information into their resource decisions when the “place-based” knowledge of the nonscientist stakeholders are devalued in comparison to scientific value system.” The authors call watershed management “a process that is fundamentally social in nature,” although they recognize that the social interaction required to overcome local reluctance to consider scientific opinion would require a considerable investment of time and energy on the part of the scientist.

Yet another study recognizes the downside of social involvement: the struggle to maintain credibility. A real threat to an involved, civic-minded scientist is loss of credibility as a result of participating in a contentious issue. The answer is not to shy from a public role, the authors argue, but rather to get involved early in the process, when technical information “can assist in framing issues.”” A less prominent role is called for when setting priorities, they write, while during creating legislation or implementing policy, participation should be limited (as it has historically) to providing discrete, technical information.

Another study, looking specifically at wetlands, pointed out the wider functional significance and societal advantages of wetlands, which, the authors argue, require new protection policies not extended to traditional resource protection based solely on conser~ation.~~Wetlands, they state, require a stronger link between science and policy instruments.

2o Ethical considerations in wetland management. A Armstrong. 2000. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth part B- Hydrology Oceans and Atmosphere 25(7-8): 641-44. lnteraction between scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management: emergence of the concept of stream naturalization. BL Rhoads et. al. 1999. Environmental Management 24(3): 297-308. 22 Enhancing policy-relevance without burning up or burning out: a strategy for scientists. E Graffy. 1999. Science into Policy: Water in the Public Realm. AWRA June/July: 293-98. 23 Linking wetland science to policy: meeting the challenge with special reference to water quality issues. E Maltby, MSA Blackwell, CJ Baker. 2000. Biological Resource Management: Connecting Science and Policy. 291-308.

1999l2000 MN Wetland Report p. 34 B. Wetland Assessment Using Biologic Indices and Citizen Volunteers

By Murk Gernes, Minnesota Poliirtion Control Agency

The continued net loss of wetland acres from drainage and fill activities has been slowed in large part because of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Yet there is little information available to compare the functional condition of wetlands and determine trends in wetland quality within various regions of Minnesota.

In developing wetland management plans [see Section 1II.B-31,the LGU must inventory wetlands in the plan area and assess wetland functions. An LGU uses these wetland assessments to evaluate permitting decisions and prioritize wetland resource, but they are not designed to monitor trends in wetland quality.

In another approach to wetland assessment, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), with funding assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has developed biological assessment methods for depressional wetlands in the central hardwoods region of Minnesota.

The work by the MPCA applied an approach known as the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI). The IBI approach uses several easily measured standard attributes of the biological community to evaluate wetland water quality or condition. Before an attribute can be used in the IBI, it must have a predictable response to varying degrees of human alteration.

Results from the MPCA IBI work show that biological measures can provide reliable assessments of human impact. The MPCA has proposed two wetland IBIs, one based on invertebrates and the second based on vegetation. MPCA thus far has focused on developing the biological indexes. Applying the IBI index or other assessment approaches to determine status or trends in wetland quality have not yet been undertaken in Minnesota.

Volunteer citizen monitoring programs have been fairly successful in evaluating Minnesota lake quality. Similar programs are beginning to be applied in Minnesota streams. Volunteer monitoring programs could be developed for Minnesota wetlands. Since 1997, Dakota County, in cooperation with the MPCA, has been piloting a wetland volunteer monitoring program using streamlined wetland IBIs based on the MPCA work. This work has been funded in part by US EPA and the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources.

In addition to being a wonderful new experience and excellent environmental education opportunity for citizens, this project has provided wetland assessment data (Figure 1) regarding the relative proportion of wetlands in three assessments of quality: excellent,

1999/2000 MN Wetland Report p. 35 moderate and poor. Each team participating in this project was sponsored by a city in Dakota County and each team typically assessed four or five wetlands each year.

Figure 1. Dakota County wetland health evaluations for 1998 (N=32) and 2000 (N=38). (Wetland invertebrate and plant data were collected by teams of trained volunteers.)

1998 vegetation results 1998 invertebrate N = 32 results These data show that, of the N = 32 Exc Poor wetlands surveyed, a Exc Poor relatively high proportion of 5% wetlands in Dakota County are of moderate to poor Mod Mod quality, and a relatively small 75% 66% proportion are in excellent 2000 vegetation results 2000 invertebrate condition. Note that, over N = 38 results time, it appears there may be a N = 38 greater proportion of poor Exc 5%- .- quality wetlands, but more data is needed to fully determine a trend. Mod 58%

C. Minnesota Native Vegetation Guide

Getting water into a wetland has been the focus of wetland restoration and creation; like any measure of health, hydrology tells only part of the story. Successful wetland restoration also requires a native, diverse plant community. Many times, however, native vegetation cannot re-establish itself in disturbed soils without help. Preparing the site, planting, and controlling for weeds is not rocket science, but it does require planning and attention to such varied details as landscape, weather, seed mix, and contractor management.

Long-awaited, written specifically for Minnesota wetlands, is the newly-published guide Native Vegetation in Restored and Created Wetlands: Its Establishment and Management in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest. This is an excellent reference for everything from getting to know the site to what method of weed control works best for a given plant. It includes specific plant lists for different wetland types, checklists to compare bidder qualifications, and a complete sample plan of an actual wetland restoration project. Clearly written and illustrated, it pulls together the disparate knowledge of experts in a consultation that improves the prognosis on wetland vegetation.

Copies can be obtained for $11.95 at http://www.comm.media.state.mn.us/bookstore/ viewbook.asp?stocknum=lO-1or by calling Minnesota’s Bookstore: (800) 657-3757. Native Vegetation in Restored and Created Wetlands: Its Establishment and Management in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest. Daniel 6.Shaw. Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Sept. 2000. 96pp.

1999/2000MN Wetland Report p. 36 VII. Preliminary Assessment of SWANCC on Minnesota Wetlands

Thefollowing is a preliminary assessment of the inipcicts of the SWANCC v. USACOE and the State’s potential cissurnption of the Section 404 Wders/Wetlnnd Regnlntoi-)~Program. By John Jaschke, Land and Water Section Administrator, Board of Water & Soil Resources

1. Introduction. On January 9, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (Slip Opinion, No. 99-1 178, October Term, 2000); herein referred to as SWANCC) that limits the scope of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Clean Water Act regulatory permitting program (Section 404) as applied to “isolated” waters. Finding that there was not a clear indication of Congressional intent, the Court declined to interpret the statute as allowing jurisdiction to be asserted over isolated waters based solely on the basis of their use as migratory bird habitat. The Court also acknowledged the significant nexus between wetlands and “navigable waters” but that the word “navigable” in the statute was of “limited effect” and went on to hold that Section 404 does extend to non-navigable wetlands adjacent to open waters.

In SWANCC, the Court invalidated use of the “Migratory Bird Rule” as the sole basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over non-navigable, isolated and intrastate waters/wetlands. Left unclear is whether other tests could be applied to assert jurisdiction over these waterdwetlands. The Corps and EPA are currently evaluating other tests in view of the decision. The case affirmed that navigable waters, their tributaries, and wetlands adjacent to either, are regulated under the Clean Water Act. Definitions of “isolated,” “navigable,” “adjacent,” and “tributary” will likely go through a cycle of test cases, supplemental guidance, new regulations, and litigation before they are stable. Note that there are many non-navigable and intrastate waterdwetlands that are still within Clean Water Act jurisdiction because they are adjacent to a Section 10 navigable water, or a tributary to navigable waters.

For a much more complete analysis of SWANCC, view the Association of State Wetland Managers assessment at http://www.aswm.org from which excerpts for this analysis were obtained.

2. Effects on States. By narrowing the water and wetland areas subject to federal regulation, the decision also narrows the areas and activities subject to Clean Water Act Section 40 1 programs that require State approval for federally permitted activities. It partially narrows the areas and activities subject to State CZM consistency review and it partially limits the areas and activities addressed by State 404 “assumption” programs and by State Programmatic Permits. The decision affirms the “primary responsibilities and rights of the States” or over land and waters and shifts more of the economic burden for regulating wetlands to states and local governments.

According to some states, this Supreme Court decision removed nearly 80 percent of wetlands from EPA and Corps jurisdiction. However, that the percentage is likely more in the neighborhood of 10 to 40 percent based on some preliminary analysis. Whatever the

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 37 precise percentage, the approximately 35 states without state statute regulatory programs for freshwater isolated wetlands are now left without any protection for non-navigable, intrastate or isolated wetlands. In the remaining 15 states that do have state based protection for freshwater isolated wetlands (Maine, Vermont, Virginia, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Minnesota, Maryland, Florida-except for panhandle, Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire)’4 the ruling can only mean no more, and possibly less, protection unless state authority is subsequently expanded. Note: Wisconsin passed a state law on May 3, 2001,to fill the large SWANCC void.

3. Effects in Minnesota. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and DNR Public Waters (PW) Program in concept provide a “seamless coverage” for regulation of all wetlands in Minnesota, except for those on federal or tribally owned land. However, there are some gaps exposed by SWANCC in that some activities exempt from state regulation^'^ were protected only by federal regulation and are now without any regulatory controls for non-navigable, intrastate or isolated wetlands. These exposures are not yet quantified, but the reality is that fewer wetlands will be regulated by the Corps in the prairie pothole/agricultural area of the state (where there are also fewer wetlands remaining on the landscape) and less change will occur in the wetland abundant areas of the state (northeast quadrant) since many of those wetlands are not isolated and many are on government-owned land. The task of quantifying non-regulated wetlands could be estimated using GIS data and analysis but first requires that EPA and the Corps develop guidance and definitions for “isolated” and “navigable” (including related terms such as “adjacent” and “tributary”).

Another aspect of SWANCC that the MPCA needs to assess is that of applicability to the NPDES permit program. According to Larry Zdon, for the purposes of wastewater and stomiwater NPDES permitting, virtually all waters and wetlands were considered waters of the U.S. Now, wastewater discharge situations or stormwater discharges to non­ navigable, intrastate or isolated waters/wetlands are unlikely to be subject to NPDES pemiit requirements.

404 Program Assumption 1. History/Authorization. The Section 404(a) Program was enacted as part of the original Clean Water Act in 1972 and is implemented-with EPA oversigh-by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which also administers the Section 10 program (Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899). Section 404(g), adopted in 1977, authorizes EPA to approve state programs for “discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters (other than those waters which are presently used, or are susceptible to use in their natural condition or by reasonable improvement as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce.. .) including wetlands adjacent thereto.” 404 Assumption essentially means that EPA agrees that the state either has, or will have before it assumes, equivalent or greater standards, procedures and outcomes as compared to the Section 404 Program. Michigan assumed

24 National Wetlands Newsletter 23(2): 10. 25 These WCA exemptions include: agricultural activities when the owner is participating in the federal farm program, agricultural activities on types 1, 2, and 6 wetlands, permanent forest roads, activities in incidental wetlands, certain activities for utilities and public works, grandfathered approved development or certain de minimis activities.

199912000MN Wetland Report p. 38 the 404 Program in 1984 and New Jersey assumed the program in 1994. The following web sites provide an overview of the process and describe the legal procedures and requirements for assumption: http ://www.epa.govlowowlwet landslfact slfact23.html http:llwww.epa.govlOWOWlwetlandsl4Ocfrlpart233.html.

2. Estimates of Program Overlap for Minnesota. The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and Public Waters Program together exert jurisdiction over all waters and wetlands in the state, except for those on federal or tribally owned land. The federal programs (Sec. 404 and Sec. 10) cover these same waters plus those on federal or tribally owned land. Although this is not quantifiable, my estimate of the jurisdictional overlap between current federal and state programs in Minnesota is:

95% overlap for 404 and WCA 99% overlap for 4041Sec. 10 and Public Waters

These percentages will likely decrease some because the changes brought on by SWANCC v. USACOE can only mean the Corps will regulate less wetland area.

3. Conclusions. State Assumption of the 404 program would be the most straightforward way to provide landowners with one-stop-shopping for waters and wetlands permits. Three things would have to be done:

(i) The state laws, the WCA in particular, would need some modifications to match the requirements of Sec. 404 in some limited areas. Specifically, the WCA exemptions for: permanent forest roads; type 1,2, and 6 agricultural wetlands; previously approved development; federal approvals; parts of the incidental wetlands exemptions and parts of the de minimis exemption would have to be eliminated or modifiedfor non-isolated or navigable (including udjacent and tributary) wetlands. Also, the state would need to establish an Administrative Penalty Order (APO) process for waters and wetlands that would be similar to existing authority at the federal level.

(ii) Some portion of the USACOE personnel managing wetlands in Minnesota would need to be replaced using state funding as there would be additional training, project and program oversight, data management and federal coordination (Endangered and Threatened Species Act - USFWS, National History Presentation Act - SHPO, program and project review - EPA) requirements placed on the state, and to a lesser extent, on local governments. Although some overall efficiencies will be realized, an estimate of six to seven FTEs at the state level is projected based on the expected federal diminution of involvement.

(iii) An agreement developed to take advantage of the opportunity to link the Federal Farm Program “Swampbuster” provisions with the state-assumed 404 program

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 39 so that agricultural landowners can realize similar benefits from better coordinated regulation.

Alternative options such as broadened and simplified general permits and/or letters of permission, in combination with interagency personnel agreements, should be explored fully in order to assess which path could best achieve the objectives of maintaining environmental protection, streamlining procedures and paperwork for landowners and achieve optimum use of staff resources at all levels of government.

w:lSWANCC and ASSESSMENT OF SEC 404 ASSUMPT/ONfourfh drafl.doc

VIII. National Viewpoint: Wetland Mitigation at the Federal Level

Thefollowing summary is excerpted from the National Research Council report on wetland mitigation published in June 2001.-’6The report addresses primarily COE-regulated mitigation activities but contains extensive background information on both the science and policy of wetland mitigation. The complete report can be viewed at http :llnational-academies.org/webextra/wetlands.

The National Research Council is part of the National Academy of Sciences, a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research. The Academy has a mandate from Congress to advise the federal government of scientific and technical matters. The committee preparing this report was charged with evaluating how well and under what conditions compensatory mitigation required under Section 404 is contributing towards satisfying the overall objective of restoring and maintaining the quality of the nation’s waters.

The committee reviewed examples of wetland restoration and creation projects in Florida, Illinois, and southern California that were required as a condition of Section 404 permits; received briefings from outside experts; and conducted an extensive review of the scientific literature on wetlands, government data and reports, and information provided by a wide variety of experts and organizations.

The five principal conclusions and some basic recommendations are listed below:

Conclusion 1: The goal of no net loss of wetlands is not being met for wetland functions by the mitigation program, despite progress in the last 20 years.

Recommendations: Track wetland acres and functions in the COE database, improve data entry and quality control, and encourage watershed management on the local level.

26 Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. 2001. National Research Council Committee on Mitigation of Wetland Losses, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Water Science and Technology Board. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 320 pp.

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 40 Conclusion 2: A watershed approach would improve permit decision-making.

Recommendations: Follow an analytically based assessment of the wetland needs in the watershed and review the potential for success in the chosen location. Opportunities for in-kind compensation need to be sought within a larger landscape context. A landscape- level analysis of wetland diversity, connectivity, and upland/wetland proportions is needed. Some wetland types (fenshogs) cannot be restored and impacts should not be permitted. All mitigation wetland should become self-sustaining. [See box below.]

Conclusion 3: Performance expectations in Section 404 permits have often been unclear, and compliance has often not been assured nor attained.

Recommendations: Too much emphasis in too short a time frame produces too Ten Operational Guidelines for Creating or wet sites, to assure hydrology, when less Restoring Self-sustaining Wetlands would be better. “Long-term 1. Consider the hydrogeomorphic and ecological stewardship” is encouraged, implying a landscape and climate. time frame typically accorded to other 2. Adopt a dynamic landscape perspective. publicly valued natural assets, like parks. 3. Restore or develop naturally variable hydrological conditions. The report offers three general goals to 4. Whenever possible, choose wetland restoration over ensure compliance and nine specific creation. recommendations to achieve these goals 5. Avoid over-engineered structures in the wetland’s (including use of a functional assessment design. protocol and compliance monitoring). 6. Pay particular attention to appropriate plating elevation, depth, soil type, and seasonal timing. 7. Provide appropriately heterogeneous topography. 8.Pay attention to subsurface conditions, including soil Conclusion 4: Support for regulatory and sediment geochemistry and physics, groundwater decision-making is quantity and quality, and infaunal communities. inadequate. 9. Consider complications associated with wetland creation or restoration in seriously degraded or disturbed sites. Recommendations: Develop a reference 10.Conduct early monitoring as part of adaptive manual for each region. COE funding is management. need to support training and research. State-level planning is essential.

Conclusion 5: Third-party compensation approaches (mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs) offer some advantages over permittee-responsible mitigation.

Recommendations: Section 404 program should be improved to achieve no net loss for both wetland area and wetland functions.

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 41 [This page intentionally left blank.]

199912000 MN Wetland Report p. 42 IX. Appendix

List of Appendices

Appendix A -Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Pre-Statehood Wetland Areas (map)

Appendix B -Minnesota Counties and 81 Major Watersheds (map and index)

Appendix C -1999 & 2000 WCA Data Reported by Local Government Units

Appendix D-1 -Local Road Impacts [Public Road Wetland Impacts] (map)

Appendix D-2 -Bank-Mitigated Impacts (map transparency)

Appendix D-3 - Bank Replacement Purchases (map) Appendix D-4 -Replacement Sites: BWSR and Wetland Bank (map transparency)

Appendix D-5 - Local Road Credits Required (map)

Appendix E -Comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plans Summary Sheet

Appendix F-1 -Wetland Bank Status Report (also available @ www.bwsr.state.mn.us)

Appendix F-2 -Wetland Banking in Minnesota (fact sheet)

Appendix G-1 -RIM Reserve (fact sheet)

Appendix G-2 -RIM Wetland Restoration Program Summary Appendix H-1 -Wetland Data from Anderson and Craig (list) Appendix H-2 -Wetland Comparison, with percent wet, deep, upland, and total area (list)

Appendix H-3 -Wetland Comparison, including Circular 39, by County (list) Appendix I -Wetland Types in Minnesota

Appendix J -Wetland-related web sites

1999/2000 MN Wetland Report p. 43 Appendix A

Minnesota- - _. Wetland Conservation Act Pre - Statehood Wetland Areas

! 4 50% i

1i 1 I!

\MAPS.SAWWCA-items\percwetareas Appendix B

Minnesota Counties and Watersheds

H

G

F

E

D

C

B

A

1 2 3 4 5

Appendix B

County Names and Index Major Watersheds - Numbers

Aitkin E-4 Martin A-2 Big Fork - 77 Mustinka - 55 Anoka c-4 McLeod B-3 Big Sioux (Medary Creek) - 81 Nemadji - 5 Becker E-1 Meeker C-2 Big Sioux (Pipestone) - 82 North Fork Crow - 18 Beltrami G-2 Mille Lacs D-3 Blue Earth - 30 Ottertail - 56 Benton D-3 Morrison D-3 Bois de Sioux - 54 Pine - 11 Big Stone c-I Mower A-4 Buffalo - 58 Pomme de Terre - 23 Blue Earth A-3 Murray A-I Cannon - 39 Rainy (Baudette) - 79

Brown A-2 Nicollet B-3 Cedar - 48 " (Headwaters) - 72

Carlton E-4 Nobles A-I Chippewa - 26 " (Manitou) - 75

Carver B-4 Norman F-I Clearwater - 66 " (Rainy Lake) - 74 Cass E-3 Olmsted A-5 Cloquet - 4 Rapid - 78 Chippewa c-1 Otter Tail E-I Cottonwood - 29 Red Lake - 63 Chisago c-4 Pennington G-I Crow Wing - 12 Red River of the North - 57 Clay E-I Pine D-4 East Fork des Moines - 53 Redeye - 13 Grand Marais Creek - 67 Clearwater F-2 Pipestone A-I (Red River of the North) Redwood - 27 Cook G-6 Polk F-1 Kettle - 35 Rock - 83 Cottonwood A-2 Pope c-2 Lac Qui Parle - 24 Root - 43 Crow Wing E-3 Ramsey C-4 Lake of the Woods - 80 Roseau - 71 Dakota B-4 Red Lake G-I Lake Superior North - 1 Rum - 21 Dodge A-4 Redwood 8-2 Lake Superior South - 2 Sandhill - 61 Douglas D-2 Renville B-2 Le Sueur - 32 Sauk - 16 Faribault A-3 Rice B-4 Leech Lake - 8 Shell Rock - 49 Fillmore A-5 Rock A-1 Little Fork - 76 Snake -68 Freeborn A-4 Roseau H-I Little Sioux - 84 Snake - 36 Goodhue B-4 Scott 8-4 Long Prairie - 14 South Fork Crow - 19 Grant D-1 Sherburne C-3 Marsh - 59 St. Croix (Stillwater) - 37 Hennepin c-4 Sibley B-3 Minnesota (Granite Falls) - 25 St. Croix (Upper) - 34

Houston A-5 St. Louis F-4 " (Headwaters) - 22 St. Louis - 3

Hubbard F-2 Stearns C-2 " (Mankato) - 28 Tamarac - 69 lsanti c-4 Steele A-4 '' (Shakopee) - 33 Thief - 65 ltasca F-3 Stevens C-I Mississippi (metro) - 20 TWO- 70 Jackson A-2 Swift c-1 (Red Wing/Lk Pepin) 38 Upper Iowa - 46 Kanabec D-4 Todd D-2 (Brainerd) - 10 Upper/Lower Red Lake - 62 Kandiyohi c-2 Traverse D-I (Grand Rapids) - 9 Vermillion - 73 Kittson H-1 Wabasha B-5 (Headwaters) - 7 W Fork Des Moines (headwtrs) -! Koochiching G-3 Wadena E-2 (La Crescent) - 42 W Fork Des Moines (lower) - 52 Lac Qui Parle C-I Waseca A-3 (Reno) - 44 Wapsipinican - 47 Lake F-5 Washington C-4 (Sartell) - 15 Watonwan - 31 Lake of the Woods H-2 Watonwan A-2 (St. Cloud) - 17 Wild Rice - 60 LeSueur B-3 Wilkin E-I (Winona) - 40 Winnebago - 50 Lincoln B-1 Winona A-5 Zumbro - 41 Lyon B-1 Wright C-3 Yellow Mahnomen F-I Medicine B-I Marshall G-I

h:wetrep/clppen d/cntyrnop.doc -C a 0 0 p 0 0

l-

C .-0 U d

A c C a 0 0 Appendix D-I

Local Road Wetland Impacts Appendix D-2 Bank-Mitigated Impacts

A total of acres had no location information available and are not shown. 48.3 bankmitimp.pdf Appendix D-3

Bank Replacementr­ Purchases

bankreppurch.pdf Replacement Sites: Appendix B-4

BWSR r.--. and Wetland Bank

0 - 0.5 0.51 - 1 1.1 -5 5.1 - 10 10.1 -25 25.1 - 86

1Government Credits + Jumpstart site Appendix D-5 Local Road Credits Required

Acres Required 0 - 0.5 0.51 - 1 1.1 -5 5.1 - 10 10.1 -25 25.1 - 86

Direct on-site replacement mitigated 114 acres of impact (not shown). Iroadcred.pdf Appendix E

COMPREHENSIVE WETLAND PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT PLANS

LGU BC BWSR 1 EXPECTED 1 NOTICETO I BWSR I DATELGU GRANT START DATE AGENCIES APPROVAL ADOPTION Bloomington Doug Snyder No Done 8-05-96 8-23-97 6-16-97 Burnsville Phil Belfiori $7.5K Snrine 97 1-97 1-99 1-99 Carver County Doug Snyder No Summer 00 Chanhassen Doug Snyder No April 97 None sought 94 Ordinance Eden Prairie Doug Snyder No April 97 1-00 3-24-00 00 Ordinance Minnehaha WD Doug Snyder $15k March 97 10-98 None Sought Painters Creek Plan Minnetonka Doug Snyder No Done 10-08-96 None sought 97 Ordinance Plymouth Doug Snyder $15k February 97 1-14-97 None Sought 97 Ordinance RWMWD Phil Belfiori No Done 5-28-97 6-97 Rosemount Phil Belfiori $15k Spring 97 June 97 7-98 6-98 St Louis Park Doug Snyder No Summer 00 3-01 Savage Doug Snyder LCMR Decision Spring 98 11-99 1-00 Ordinance ~~ 00

I I I MakinrrY Grant 1 I I I I SWWD Phil Belfiori No August 98 August 98 4-01 Lakeville Phil Belfiori Just starting VLA WMO Phil Belfiori $7,500 July 99 August 99 Summer 00

N( RTHERN REGION LGU BC BWSR EXPECTED I NOTICETO I BWSR I DATELGU GRANT START DATE AGENCIES APPROVAL ADOPTION Cass Dale Krystosek Yes 1995 June 97 9-24-97 12-97 (challenge) Lake of the Woods Dale Krystosek Yes (challenge July 2001 July 200 1 Summer 2003 Fall 2003 City of Baxter Dan Steward Yes (challege) Spring 2000 Summer 2000 1 Koochiching 1 Mark Nelson No Underway July 98 Spring 2000 Spring 2000 Lake I MarkNelson $7.5k Done Done 4-28-99 Spring 1999 Mille Lacs Keith Grow No 2001 Late 2000 St. Louis Mark Nelson $15k Done Done 4-28-99 Spring 1999 Dale Krystosek Yes Fall 1999

(challenge) 1 Spring2001 ~ Spring2001 I Aitkin I Keith Grow No February 2001 February 2001 Polk I Bill Best NO 1997-2001 ***No Action Taken to Date*** Beltrami 1 Brian Dwight $15k March 1998 10-15-97 Spring 2000 Spring 2000 No Same as ***No action Taken to Date*** Beltrami Applied for December 2000 January 2001 Challenge

Grant I No Considerim

LGU BC BWSR I EXPECTED I NOTICETO I BWSR I DATELGU GRANT START DATE AGENCIES APPROVAL ADOPTION Rochester Mary Kells $15k Dormant Fall 1996 Draft Plan None expected Martin County Chris Hughes No September 1998 August 1998 Houston County Mary Kells No Dorman Summer 1996 Everything was stopped. Nothing is initiated at this time. 0 N m r-3 In In In N T- 7 m In 0 0 ­ T­ 03 O 2 T­ 2In In d d c? 2In - I­ * r- O h 0 b 0 9 9 a 9 m m a $ 1 L a 1 I- 1 4J 1 i c i c 3 3 3 Q5: K 121 E L L E, a, W c a, I- n E

t t t t

0 0 m 0 T­ In 0 f T- In ; m2 m P W2 xN N 0 2 3 0 In B -.­ 0 v) %- U '0 W C Q) I m 0, -m L m -5: s*0) n rc 0 -him T-Nm (D T - N ~ Em 0 z zzzz zzzz zzz zzzz zzz zzz rn z 0000 0000 000 0000 000 000 a 0 333 $$$2 333zzz 333zzz z zzzg zzzg zzz 000 0000 0003 000 In a?r-019 99'4 Z?Z -"a? wswo 00- wmo 7 T- W2 N

am0 6 amon amon 6m0 amun

.- _ .- ._ Q Q Q Q ._Q ._Q ._Q a In mIn m Inm In ._ .- .- ._ m Inm mIn ._In ._ .- ._ 2 I 2 I 0 0 0 T- 0 r 9 T- 9 T­

c ._c ._c ._e ._C ._ Y $ Y 5 5 a a a a T­ T- T- 7 T- - O 0 0 0 0 0

r- 03 m 0 T- W T­ 7T- 07 0T- 0T- 0Y - 0 (D m 0-J In 03 07 N P CO2 7­ mz m LD d N - h h 0 0 N N ? ", N, ?.

-._m c 3 _1 a,0 m v) a, U a, 0 m E U 7 C ._m m L c 10 C U a, E i 0 7m a, v) v) 0 ?? L 0 a a,v) I L .-a, a, L c ._- c3 9 2

t t t t

N r- m 9 m o* N r­ R 2 x "2 2 - .- O r 7

-.. -.. -.. m U Um Um 0 0 0 I- I- I- Q c2 r) Q 3 3 3 3 v) 0 v) v) > > > U t- U U C C C 3 3 s 0 0 0 0 0 m d 0

> > Z

0 3 Z xm

a a a

_ d a .. ._a ._v) m .- I 0 0 N N

Ym :0 N N 0 0

N W 01 T­ m In 7 0r N N T- 7 ._D m c c CW

i 0 x ._L 0

t t > t t t t

alrn m

r- w c n T- m m W N N N m m * m 7- T- T- T­ T- T- T- -x C W 3 W N 8 T- T- L O 0 0: a, 0 0) W c ? 3 m 2 h F W co m I- m ? -a, - h 0 0 c! 0 N N c C z z E 8 rm 2 Q x n> P m na, a x : r $ s Y c -a, m I) m .-0, 0 Q I K

t t t t

W N In r. c9 c? 7 m 7 d 2 d d

-.. -.. -.. -.. m m m U c U Um 0 0 0 0 I- I- D I- ?? n n ca, z n cm 3 3 -m 3 3 3 v) v) rn v) 0 h >, -a >, >, U c c U I= C t t C 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 o o u 0 m d

z z !2 0 Z z N r. 3 s d

a a

.? 7 N ...... m m a 8 v) c 3 E2 a,Q 5 E Y Q ._a .-Q 1 03 2; 5 0 20 W W Lcw 8zb N N 0 0 L Q, P E z3 5% c_m 30 0 0 02 N

T­ r- N O d m ? T- m 0T- d 0 2 2 v- 7 m N W 2 m m m W In In h 0 0 0 0 N W '?r- ? W 2. d d d d h h 2m c\1 N r r 03 Yx 'D 'D V 2 a, 'D m U C C C m c c a, a, 7 2 a,> 0 70 % > m 7 0" 0 g g ._ ._ ._ 9 Y Y Y a, U- v) v) n 0 3 D 0 0 - -3 - -5 2 m W b 6 0 0

t t t t t t t

0 0 0) 0 d OW In d In x 2 8 2 2.-01 2 x : mR d N

-.. -.. -.. m cm cm e 0 0 0 U vu ala, 6 !i a, 5 c­ z c 3 m 3 22 3 2 - v) -0 v) 0 00 v) v) > 23 *r LL > - c e cc c c 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 u mm m m mm

zz Z z tt

0 00 sZ 2 22

0 r- NN c9 38 0 :

am a a am

yc.. P)

m m m cm .. v) v) c 0In c) a6 n6 a6 C a, C Y 3 c 3 3 ._a a ._a c m 0 ._ 0 (I) 5 5 6 0 2 0 m W W W 9 m z N N N w- u­2 0 0 L L a Q) a Q E E 3 z3 z a, *r c > c c B B B a 0 0 0 0 0 C C 3 0 3 a a a a 0 0 0 7 - v- r 0 r- W W W W u

r- m In W r­ W 03 cn r- r­ W r-r z z ? r 7 T- In r. r. a 7 In x N W N N r. W h a, W r-d xIn 7 W m x h c? W 0 xIn N m h 2 0 a !2 In N a, dIn _L 2 m T­ 1 In x a,In N 00 0 a 2 c- a, .-8 c _5: c U F C m 0 7m m c c Y m E Uc c c 70 m P a, LL Y Uc vi m L Y ._U m L ._ u ._e, L Ys LL

t t t t t t

W 0 m In 00 '4 4 2 s 7 22 N d 03

-.. -.. cm Um 0 0 U F ca, n s m s s _ v) v) -5: % % c c C C 7 7 0 0 0 m m mm3 o

z t ttt

0 000 5 522 :W

6 a

L-4 d 2> 2 .. .. c v) v) a,3 c c Y (5 _0 m3 0 (I) * W 0 7

.-In 3 5 _10 z II tj a m m m W r. b r.

0 0 m N m * ? z W7 z ? In In xm -d 03 7­ e! - 0 csN

._v) c Y c c na, m c I 2 1m

t t > t t

0 0 (v (D (D b p? c9 N T 7- 2 x N R

-.. -.. -.. wm c.m Um 0 0 0 - I- I- R n n 3 3 3 n v) v) h h h c) .w U S c c 3 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 3NN -mm mm3N3 d3 zzz zzz ZtZtZ tzt tt

000 00 z5z $2 300 000 LON r-cn ?“9 ?-?9 --“a! “p? 7-0 l0r-r- Uidb 7-m

am0 am0 amonw a mun am

7 r N

.. L .. .. 3 ._X v) v) Y a, U c. c 3 2 E c a v) 0 3 3 0 0 0 1W z 0 s 2 N r- P 8 m m b r 5 0 0 L L L a 0 a Q Q E E E 3 z3 z3 z m0 z h h Z 5 % c c. II S S S 3 3 3 3 0 0 0) (D L) - 0 03 u 03

cn 037- *N N ? CO c\1 d h N 7 'D

c II 0) 3 >" ._c­ 3

t

0h

Lc 0

Em

rn0

or. r-ln

u) .-c sD

>0 a

v) .-c sD

a,3 z II 0 3 z Appendix F-2

WETLAND BANKINGIN MINNESOTA

What iswetlandbanking? Wetland banking is a convenient way to replace wetlands drained or filled for agriculture or urban development. Wetland banking allows a person wishing to drain or fill a wetland to purchase wetland credits from someone who has already restored or created a wetland and “deposited” those wetland credits in the Minnesota Wetland Bank. The Minnesota Board of Water and Soils Resources (BWSR) administers this bank.

Whv do we needit? Under most wetlands regulations in Minnesota, people who drain or fill wetlands need to write a plan outlining how they will either create new wetlands or restore previously drained wetlands to replace the ones lost. This replacement must generally be in the same watershed or county as the original wetlands. Since direct, on-site replacement is often impractical-and the person proposing the project may have no idea of where to create or restore a wetland-purchasing credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank is a convenient option. Essentially, the wetland banking system helps connect landowners who have already restored or created wetlands with those who need to replace wetlands they plan to drain or fill.

How do Iget started? A good first step for anyone contemplating making a deposit or withdrawal is to contact the local government unit that administers the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), the most all-encompassing wetland regulation law, in the area where the deposit or withdrawal acreage is located. Wetland banking can also be used for wetlands regulated by other programs. If you’re not sure of the appropriate local government office, your local soil and water conservation district (SWCD) can help get you started. SWCD phone numbers are in the county govern­ ment section of the phone book.

How do Imakea denosit? To make a deposit, a landowner must file an application and supporting technical information with the local government unit administering the WCA, in that area. Forms can be obtained from the local government or at ftp://ftp.bwsr.state.mn.us. After filing with the local government unit, a technical panel inspects the site and advises the local government unit whether or not the application should be approved. If it is approved, the landowner may restore the wetland. When construction is completed, the landowner must inform the local government unit; the technical evaluation panel will then inspect the site a second time. If the technical evalua­ tion panel approves the construction/restoration, the landowner must wait for six months (for a restored wetland) or one year (for a created wetland). After this waiting period, the landowner must again contact the local govern­ ment unit, which will send the technical evaluation panel to inspect the site for the third time. This waiting period and third inspection are intended to ensure that the wetland has stabilized. The technical evaluation panel will recommend to the local government the amount of wetland acreage and type to be deposited in the bank. After the local government certifies that all necessary legal documents have been filed and the correct procedures followed, it provides this information to BWSR. How do I make a withdrawal? Purchase of wetland credits is a private sales transaction between the buyer and seller. The Board of Water and Soil Resources’ banking coordinator (BWSR, 1 West Water Street, Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55107; 65 1/297-4958; [email protected]) can give a prospective buyer the names and phone numbers of people with wetland credits available for sale in the appropriate area. This information is available at http:// www.bwsr.state.mn.us/programs/major/wca/acctlist.pdf.A number of steps are involved in purchasing wetland credits, including:

The buyer and seller must sign a purchase agreement (3vailable from your local government unit or at ftp://ftp.bwsr.state.mn.us/WCA/).

The buyer must obtain approval from the agency with regulatory authority over the wetland that the buyer wants to drain or fill. Generally, this agency will be the local government unit administering WCA; the Department of Natural Resources; or the Army Corps of Engineers. Again, your local soil and water conserva­ tion districts should be able to help you with this.

The parties must close upon the sale, with the buyer paying for the credits and the seller signing an Applica­ tion for Withdrawal of Wetland Credirs (available from your local government or at the web address above) and giving it to the buyer.

The buyer obtains all necessary signatures on an Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits and sends it, along with a completed replacement plan, to the appropriate regulatory authority, which then forwards it to the Board of Water and Soil Resources.

How muchdo wetland creditstyuically cost? Prices vary dramatically, from $1,000 per acre to $20,000 or more in the Twin Cities metropolitan area

Who can I contractfor more information? Your local soil and water conservation district (SWCD) or the nearest BWSR office.

BWSR OFFICES Central office: 65 1 /296-3767 St. Paul: 65 1/282-9969 Duluth: 2 18/723-4752 Bemidji: 2181755-4235 Brainerd: 21 8/828-2383 Marshall: 507/537-6060 New Ulm: 507/359-6074 Rochester: 507/285-7458 Fergus Falls: 2 18/736-5445 TTY: 8001627-3529

BWSR is an equal opportunity employer. The information contained in this fact sheet is available in an alternative format upon request.

12/00 Appendix G-I

Minnesota REINVEST IN MINNESOTA[RIM1 Boardof Water&Sail Resources RESERVE PROGRAM

Background The Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Reserve Program protects water quality, reduces soil erosion, and enhances fish and wildlife habitat by retiring lands from agricultural production, planting permanent vegetative cover, and restoring previously drained wetlands. Other benefits include flood control and groundwater recharge. The program, one of the first state programs of its kind in the country, began in 1986 and is managed at the state level by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources.

How it works Landowners are paid a percentage of the assessed value of their land to voluntarily enroll it in a conservation easement. A variety of land types are eligible, including drained wetlands, riparian agricultural lands, marginal cropland, pastured hillsides, and sensitive groundwater areas. After land is enrolled, it is managed under a conservation plan, which generally includes items like wetland restoration (for areas with drained wetlands) and seeding vegetative cover (on riparian areas).

RIM Reserve has several different “arms” under which it enrolls land: “regular” RIM Reserve; the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP); the Wetlands Reserve Program/RIM Reserve; and Permanent Wetland Preserves (PWP), which enrolls existing at-risk wetlands.

The RIM Reserve Program is not truly a grant program in the same sense that many other BWSR programs are grant programs. RIM Reserve Program funding is primarily devoted to direct payments to landowners for conservation easement acquisition. Soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs), which administer the program locally, receive funding for the administrative and technical support that they provide. Programinformation RIM Reserve is primarily funded through bonding. The program enrolls perpetual easements at a payment rate based on a county assessor’s average market value of tillable land in the township. In addition, RIM Reserve provides funds to help share the cost of establishing appropriate conservation or wildlife habitat practices on easement 1ands.Landowners may need to pay a small portion of conservation practice establishment cost if cost exceeds program maximums.

Who is involved? RIM Reserve has formed the basis for local partnerships among soil and water conservation districts, environmental groups, conservation groups, and state and federal agencies. Minnesota’s 91 SWCDs have successfully imple­ mented the program locally, using knowledge of local resources to manage each easement to get the most envi­ ronmental benefit. RIM Reserve is supported by a broad coalition, including conservation groups (Ducks Unlirn­ ited, Pheasants Forever, the Minnesota Waterfowl Association, North American Wetland Conservation Council), environmental groups (the Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, the Isaak Walton League), and farming groups. These groups have provided technical, administrative, and financial assistance to the program.

0910 1 Appendix G-2

2116101 BWSR WETLAND RESTORATION PROGRAMS RIM/CREP/RIM-WRP GENERAL SUMMARY

SIGN-UP # OF # OF ACRES # OF YEAR EASEMENTS WETLANDS TOTAL WETL,AND

1986 18 543 97 27 1987 44 1,170 426 62 1988 36 1,045 317 SO ~~ 1989 44 I .786 7 14 56 1990 36 1,163 424 55 1991 91 3,176 1,406 122 1992 16 473 184 25 1993 51 2.289 902 61 1994 63 3,604 1.746 62 ~~ 1995 33 1,104 415 49 1996 36 1,594 569 56 1997 56 2.999 1,155 76 1998 55 3,292 1,469 103 1999 147 8,400 3,620 310 2000* 109 5,523 1,440 166 TOTALS 1 835 38,161 14,884 1,280

* 2000 Data is incomplete, more applications expected

0 Average Easement Size = 45.7 acres

0 Average Size of Restored Wetland = 11.7 acres Appendix H-I Wetland Data from Anderson and Craig

Jeffrey P. Anderson and William J. Craig. 1984. Growing enerRy crops on Minnesota’s wetlands: the land use perspective. University of Minnesota Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, Publ. CURA 84-3. 95 pp. Percent of remaining wetlands is relative to the pre-statehood wetland area. Data were based upon 640-acre soil landscape mapping units and interpreted for dominance with a 40-acre grid overlay. The reported value for Clearwater county (77.64) corrected by reanalyzing wetland resources upon implementation of M.R. 8420. Houston, Wabasha, and Winona counties were reported to have no pre-statehood wetlands. Currenl Percent Current Percent County Area Remaining, County Area Remaining Aitkin 5 73,000 91.1 Mahnomen 13,000 23.2 Anoka 61,000 70.9 Marshall 194,000 19.2 Becker 47,000 54.7 Martin 1,000 0.6 Beltrami 966,000 94.1 Meeker 26,000 21.7 Benton 4 1,000 65.1 Mille Lacs 84,000 90.3 Big Stone 2,000 1.7 Morrison 218,000 72.7 Blue Earth 6,000 2.2 Mower 1,000 0.5 Brown 2,000 1.o Murray 1,000 3.O Carlton 125,000 93.3 Nicollet 3,000 2.1 Carver 4,000 16.7 Nobles 0 0.0 Cass 372,000 91.4 Norman 7,000 2.8 Chippewa 1,000 0.5 Olmsted 0 0.0 Chisago 36,000 64.3 Ottertail 84,000 54.9 Clay 7,000 2.4 Pennington 29,000 8.0 Clearwater 191,000 77.6 Pifie 279,000 92.1 Cook 42,000 100.0 Pipestone 0 0.0 Cottonwood 0 0.0 Polk 27,000 4.5 Crow Wing 131,000 86.8 Pope 14,000 23.3 Dakota 4,000 14.3 Ramsey 1,000 33.3 Dodge 1,000 0.9 Red Lake 16,000 8.2 Douglas 12,000 35.3 Redwood 1,000 0.6 Faribault 3,000 1.1 Renvil le 1,000 0.4 Fillmore 0 0.0 Rice 5,000 13.2 Freeborn 3,000 1.5 Rock 0 0.0 Goodhue 0 0.0 Roseau 361,000 44.1 Grant 1,000 1.1 St. Louis 1,136,000 93.9 Hennepin 9,000 31.0 Scott 2,000 11.8 Houston 0 Sherburne 31,000 72.1 Hubbard 7,000 9.2 Sibley 6,000 2.1 Isanti 48,000 80.0 Steams 32,000 21.9 Itasca 572,000 95.O Steele 2,000 2.6 Jackson 2,000 1.4 Stevens 1,000 1.6 Kanabec 60,000 87.0 Swift 10,000 4.2 Kandiyohi 2 1,000 9.9 Todd 1 12,000 53.1 Kittson 96,000 18.6 Traverse 1,000 0.4 Koochiching 1,677,000 98. Wabasha 0 Lac Qui Park 2,000 1.2 Wadena 68,000 73.1 Lake 198,000 97.5 Waseca 5,000 4.3 Lake ofthe Woods 638,000 88.6 Washington 6,000 42.9 Le Seuer 7,000 10.1 Watonwan 1,000 0.9 Lincoln 1,000 2.5 Wilkin 1,000 0.2 Lyon 1,000 0.9 Winona 0 McLeod 3,000 6.1 Wright 6,000 22.2 Yellow Medicine 1,000 0.8 Appendix H-2 WETLANDCOMPARISON

Comparison of the relative amounts of WETLAND,DEEPWATER, and UPLANDhabitats per county. Data are derived from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory data. DEEPWATERwas assumed to be all L1, PUBG, and PUBH habitats. TOTALCOUNTYAREA (ACRES)is the sum of all WETLAND,DEEPWATER, and UPLANDfor a given county. TOTALCOUNTY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT AREA ID COUNTY WETLAND DEEPWATER UPLAND (ACRES) 1 Aitkin 43.4 7.8 48.8 1,275,882 2 Anoka 27.8 3.1 69.1 285,366 3 Becker 16.1 7.2 76.7 925,024 4 Beltrami 48.4 17.8 33.9 1,95435 1 5 Benton 15.6 0.8 83.6 264,069 6 Big Stone 9.1 3.8 87.1 337,853 7 Blue Earth 4.9 1.2 93.9 489,844 8 Brown 4.8 0.7 94.5 395,749 9 Carlton 34.4 1.3 64.3 559,669 10 Carver 15.4 3.4 81.2 240,55 1 11 Cass 23.7 15.2 61.1 1,544,046 12 Chippewa 3.3 0.7 96.0 376,186 13 Chisago 20.0 4.1 75.9 282,8 13 14 Clay 4.9 0.7 94.4 674,320 15 Clearwater 25.1 2.9 72.1 659,023 16 Cook 15.8 8.7 75.6 1,027,871 17 Cottonwood 2.6 0.8 96.6 415,260 18 Crow Wing 22.0 12.3 65.8 739,691 19 Dakota 6.5 2.6 90.8 374,907 20 Dodge 1.9 0.0 98.1 281,105 21 Douglas 13.4 10.2 76.4 460,6 13 22 Faribault 1.7 0.7 97.6 46 1,497 23 Fillmore 1.2 0.1 98.7 551,380 24 Freeborn 2.4 1.9 95.8 462,093 25 Goodhue 4.2 2.1 93.7 498,996 26 Grant 6.9 3.7 89.4 368,298 27 Hennepin 13.8 7.0 79.2 387,773 28 Houston 5.8 1.1 93.1 363,808 29 Hubbard 12.5 7.0 80.4 639,401 30 Isanti 25.1 2.4 72.5 288,961 31 Itasca 30.7 8.3 61.O 1,871,189 32 Jackson 4.9 0.6 94.5 42533 1 33 Kanabec 22.3 1.4 76.3 341,014 34 Kandiyohi 10.9 6.2 83.0 55 1,512 35 Kittson 10.3 0.2 89.6 706,662 36 Koochiching 66.8 1.1 32.1 2,016,518 37 Lac Qui Parle 5.4 1.o 93.5 464,521 38 Lake 24.8 7.5 67.7 1,462,187 39 Lake of the Woods 66.1 20.5 13.5 1,072,369 40 LeSueur 11.2 4.0 84.8 303,041 h:wetrep/finals/wetcomp.doc Appendix H-2

41 Lincoln 5.0 1.2 93.8 35 1,291 42 Lyon 3.3 0.7 96.0 461,908 43 McLeod 10.3 2.1 87.6 323,428 44 Mahnomen 13.6 4.0 82.4 373,19 1 45 Marshall 16.9 0.7 82.5 1,160,962 46 Martin 3.3 1.8 95.0 466,699 47 Meeker 14.5 4.2 81.3 412,638 48 Mille Lacs 24.2 15.4 60.4 435,92 1 49 Morrison 23.3 2.1 74.6 737,659 50 Mower 2.0 0.1 98.0 455,114 51 Murray 3.4 1.7 94.9 460,659 52 Nicollet 7.7 1.2 91.1 298,668 53 Nobles 1.7 0.8 97.5 462,362 54 Norman 3.6 0.1 96.2 544,564 55 Olmsted 2.3 0.2 97.5 41 8,545 56 Otter Tail 14.2 9.9 75.9 1,424,257 57 Pennington 7.9 0.1 92.0 395,891 58 Pine 29.6 1.3 69.1 917,282 59 Pipestone 1.7 0.1 98.3 298,576 60 Polk 7.1 1.2 91.7 1,279,543 61 Pope 14.3 4.5 81.2 455,250 62 Ramsey 9.8 7.4 82.9 108,790 63 RedLake 5.2 0.1 94.7 276,932 64 Redwood 1.8 0.1 98.1 563,963 65 Renville 3.0 0.2 96.7 63 1,656 66 Rice 7.8 2.6 89.6 330,040 67 Rock 1.2 0.2 98.7 309,277 68 Roseau 33.1 0.1 66.7 1,074,233 69 St. Louis 30.8 5.9 63.3 4,306,973 70 Scott 15.3 2.7 82.0 235,686 71 Sherbume 18.9 2.2 78.9 288,409 72 Sibley 6.8 1.1 92.1 384,030 73 Steams 14.3 2.8 82.9 889,142 74 Steele 2.6 0.2 97.2 276,348 75 Stevens 6.5 1.5 92.0 361,763 76 Swift 5.7 0.7 93.6 48 1,624 77 Todd 19.6 3.2 77.2 626,58 1 78 Traverse 3.4 1.8 94.8 371,897 79 Wabasha 5.0 3.6 91.4 35 1,537 80 Wadena 24.7 0.6 74.7 347,42 1 81 Waseca 5.7 1.o 93.3 276,776 82 Washington 14.3 12.0 73.7 149,595 83 Watonwan 2.9 0.4 96.7 281,419 84 Wilkin 2.7 0.1 97.3 467,396 85 Winona 2.7 2.4 94.8 410,2 19 86 Wright 16.2 6.4 77.4 456,881 87 Yellow Medicine 2.7 0.3 97.0 488,779 STATETOTALS 19.7 4.7 75.5 53,683,509

c m W s '" M h m N Appendix I Wetland Types in Minnesota

Excerpted from: dnr.state.mn.us/waters/wetlands

Two wetland classification methods are commonly used in Minnesota. The mapping method used for the initial wetland protection program and the DNR-regulated waters inventory (public waters inventory) legislation of 1976 and 1979 was identified in "Wetlands of the United States," published as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39 Document by Shaw and Fredine in 1956 (reprinted 1971). Eight wetland types are recognized in Minnesota; none are assigned to rivers and lakes.

In 1979, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published the Cowardin et al. method, "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the United States." This comprehensive representation of all waters wetland habitats is used on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Maps.

Type 1 - Seasonally Flooded Basin or Flat

0 Soil; Usually well-drained during much of the growing season 0 Hydrology; Covered with water or waterlogged during variable seasonal periods NWI Synlbols; PEMA, PFOA, PUS

Type 2 - Wet Meadow

Soil; Saturated or nearly saturated during most of the growing season 0 Hydrology; Usually without standing water during most of the growing season but waterlogged within at least a few inches of the surface NWI Symbols: PEMB

Type 3 - Shallow Marsh

Soil: Usually waterlogged early during growing season 0 Hydrology: Often covered with 6 inches or more of water 0 NWI Symbols: PEMC and F, PSSH, PUBA and C

Type 4 - Deep Marsh

0 Soil; Inundated Hydrology; Usually covered with 6 inches to 3 feet or more of water during growing season NWI Symbols: L2AE3F, L2EMF and G, L2US, PABF and G, PEMG and H, PUBB and F Appendix I

Type 5 - Shallow Open Water

0 Soil: Inundated 0 Hyd~ology:Usually covered with less than 10-foot-deep water; includes shallow ponds and reservoirs 0 NWI symbols: L1; L2ABG and H; L2EMA, B, and H; L2RS; L2UB; PABH; PUBG and H

Type 6 - Shrub Swamp

Soil: Usually waterlogged during growing season Hydrology: Often covered with as much as 6 inches of water; water table is at or near the surface 0 NWI~ymbols:PSSA, C, F, and G; PSSl, 5, and 6B

Type 7 -Wooded Swamp

Soil: Waterlogged within a few inches of the surface during the growing season Hydrology: Often covered with as much as 1 foot of water; water table is at or near the surface NWI Symbols: PFO1,5, and 6B; PFOC and F

Type 8 - Bogs

0 Soil: Usually waterlogged 0 Hydrology: Water table at or near the surface 0 NWI Symbols: PF02,4, and 7B; PSS2,3,4, and 7B Appendix J Wetland-Related Web Sites

GENERALWETLAND INFORMATION Environmental Law Institute-independent research & education www.eli.or% Minneapolis Metropolitan Council www.metrocouncil.or,q Association of State Wetland Managers-news www.aswm.org National Biological Information Infrastructure www.nbii .gov Society of Wetland Scientists www.sws.org

WETLANDID/VEGETATION/SOILS/CLIMATE U.S. Fish & Wildlife Ntl Wetland Inventory http://wetlands. fwx.gov Includes Cowardin classification, maps, vegetation lists Plant Family Key4ownloadable program www.mip.berkeley.edu/meka Rapid identification of biological specimens UW Virtual Foliage Home Page www.wisc.edu/botany/virtual.html

USDA-NRCS Hydric soils of the United States www.statlab.iastate.edu:80/soils/hydric Minnesota NRCS Soil Survey-hydric soils in Minnesota www.mn.nrcs.usda.gov/soils- Soil Science Society of America-soil science glossary www.soils.org/sssagloss National Society of Consulting Soil Scientists, Inc. www.nscss.org

Minnesota climate data http://climate.umn.edu National Water and Climate Center (USDA - NRCS) www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov Minnesota Geographic Information System land use data http ://ais.metc.state.m n .us Environmental Resources Spatial Analysis Center www.gis.umn.edu

STATES Council of State Governments www.statesnews.org California Wetlands Information System www.ceres.ca.gov/wetlands Texas Wetland Information Network Homepage www.glo.state.tx.us/wetnet Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Shorelands & Env. Assistance www .ecy.wa.gov Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) www.bwsr.state.mn.us/programs/ma-ior/wca.html Minnesota Department of Natural Resources www .dnr .state.mn .us Minnesota State Legislature leg.state.mn.us

FEDERAL U.S. Congress legislative information http://thomas.loc.nov U.S. Corps of Engineers-St. Paul District www.mvp.usace.army.mil U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyaffice of Water www.epa.gov/owow U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service www.fws.gov Environment Canada- Water www.ec.nc.ca/water/e main,htmI

/I :/wetrep/appendidwebsites.doc Appendix J

~-ACADEMICAND GOVERNMENTRESEARCH CENTERS U.S.G.S. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center www.npwrc.usgs.gov U.S.G.S. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center www .pi f.libs.gov National Wetlands Research Center (USCS) w w \v .I1wrc.11 s,?S. ,KO\' Duke University-Wetland Center www .en v .duke.edu/w et 1and University of Minnesota-Water Resources Science Center h ttp://wrs.coafes.unin.edu University of Wisconsin-Water Resources Institute www .wri.\vi sc.edu University of Floridaxenter for Aquatic and Invasive Plants aquatl .ifas.ufl.edu

__i%'E[3 SITES WITH LINKS AND EDUCATIONALMATERIAL M it i gation banking 1i tiks \?iww.georgelioward.net/since-1 990.11t 111 Wetland links ~-LVLVW. ni i ndspri 11:. coni/-rb w i nston/wet I and.litm Ntl Council for Science and the Environment www .ciii e.org/n 1e/we1- Sa.h t m I NEM-useful links ~~.i/ncnio.uconn.edu/s~ore/storeliiil~s.lit~l~ U.S. F&W Endangered Species Statistics h tt p ://endangered.fw s.gov/wi 1dl i fc.h t 1111 Watershed Education Tool littp:~/serve~agc.psu.cdu/dept/~rads/parson/research!homc.l~ti~- Ecosystem valuation basics -www.ecosystemvaluation.org S11 st ainab1e communit i es/top i cs www .ilext step.state.mn .LIS Buffer Notes http ://nacdnet.org/bu fferdarchive.htni UM Water Resources Links ht tp ://\\a.coafes .umn .eddli n ks .!IUIU! Interactive mapping/Minnesota htt p ://inaps.dnr .st ate.nin .LIs/landvien.i -m a3 0” 2 m m 2 0 Y0 0 0 0 Z