|
<br />12A ..
<br />A~~ '
<br />,,\I ~ 0 R Y I N G
<br />
<br />""Jilt, UP
<br />etlands
<br />
<br />
<br />Continued from page lA
<br />
<br />..permit was issued so Anoka could
<br />i,9uild a gazebo. In Plymouth, the Sil-
<br />ver Buckle Saddle Club destroyed
<br />wetlands to create a horse pasture
<br />and track.
<br />
<br />T.oday, wetlands are no longer
<br />Viewed as swamps and marshes to be
<br />!: ,bull~ozed wholesale. Most projects
<br />that Involve filling wetlands are lim-
<br />it~d to a few acres or less. Gradually,
<br />. .~etlands have become recognized as
<br />lfI,lportant ecosystems that contribute
<br />,to wildlife, water purity and floodwa-
<br />ter storage.
<br />
<br />Some suburbs have enacted strict
<br />controls on development and com-
<br />piled their own inventory of wet-
<br />lands. And a tough new state law is
<br />. designed to force even the most re-
<br />. calcitrant suburb to ensure that wet-
<br />lands taken by development are
<br />r~placed.
<br />
<br />Totaling the loss of wetlands is all
<br />'impossible because federal and
<br />e wetland regulators haven't
<br />cked it. Only in the past few
<br />. mo~ths has the U.S. Army Corps of
<br />, EngIneers. which regulates wetlands
<br />under federal jurisdiction, kept accu-
<br />rate records of what's been lost. In
<br />.fact. the federal count that puts the
<br />nl;1l!lber of wetland acres in the Twin
<br />Cities area at 270,000, released in
<br />!'fovember. is based on data collected
<br />In the early 1980s.
<br />
<br />Furthermore. wetland draining isn't
<br />even r.egulated by federal law, and
<br />only since early 1992 has it been
<br />covered by a new Minnesota law.
<br />~nd the~e still isn't a federal report-
<br />Ing requirement for most wetland
<br />projects tilling less than an acre.
<br />
<br />Some attempts have been made to
<br />quantify the loss. One study by the
<br />state Department of Natural Re-
<br />sources (DNR). which examined a
<br />selected nu~ber of proposed devel-
<br />opment proJects, shows a projected
<br />ne,t loss of 58 1 wetland acres from
<br />mld-1988 to early last fall in the
<br />seven metro counties of Anoka, Car-
<br />ver, Dakota. Hennepin, Ramsey,
<br />Scott and Washington. The losses
<br />ranged from 27 acres in Ramsey
<br />ety to 410 acres in Anoka Coun-
<br />nly Dakota County did not
<br />show a projected loss.
<br />
<br />Sunday/January 3/1993/Star Tribune
<br />
<br />In 1~89, th.e U.S. Fish and Wildlife'
<br />Service estlmated that more than half
<br />of the wetlands in the Twin Cities
<br />a:ea had been lost to development
<br />Stnce tbe area was settled. Since then
<br />hundreds of perm its allowing wet-
<br />~nds to be filled have been issued
<br />adding to tbose losses. Beth Kunkcl,
<br />,,~tlands consultant who frequently
<br />w.,?rks for Twin Cities developers,
<br />~l~, "The 'no-net-Ioss' policy isn't a
<br />no-till policy. .. . We can't reason-
<br />ably believe that we can stop filling
<br />wetlands." .
<br />
<br />The loss is compounded by other
<br />problems, from developers who try
<br />to cut comers to suburbs and town-
<br />ships now charged with protecting
<br />wetlands while seeking development
<br />ventures that could endanger them.
<br />
<br />Another wild card is "mitigation," a
<br />federal requirement designed to re-
<br />place wetlands lost to development
<br />with new, man-made wetlands. But
<br />sucb a requirement, which usually
<br />applies only to projects that fill more
<br />than an acre of wetland, doesn't guar-
<br />antee good results. Duplicating na-
<br />ture is an imperfect science, followup
<br />checks are spotty :J.nd enforcement
<br />penalties are rarel" meted out. Often
<br />mitigation has resulted in the scoop-'
<br />in'g ofa hole out of the ground-
<br />wetland in name only.
<br />
<br />Some city officials and developers
<br />charge that wetlands are overregulat-
<br />e~, and that too many marginal, un-
<br />Sightly wetlands are being preserved
<br />at the expense of development. Thev
<br />argue that some net loss is inevitable
<br />and generally favor a policy that
<br />would save only larger wetlands.
<br />
<br />Meanwhile, the debate that pits wet-
<br />lands against growth rages on from
<br />the White House and Congre~s to
<br />A.noka County and the Rice Creek
<br />Watershed District.
<br />
<br />Wetlands under pressure
<br />
<br />A.i~st-completed federal mapping of
<br />the seven-county metropolitan area
<br />shows that 14 percent of its total
<br />~creage is wetlands. In rapidly grow-
<br />mg Anoka County, 28 percent The
<br />pressure to develop wetlands in the
<br />Twin Cities area is so intense that the
<br />Corps of Engineers spends one-third
<br />of its time regulating metro projects,
<br />even though the Twin Cities ac-
<br />co~nts for only 4 percent of the
<br />st~te's total land acreage.
<br />
<br />Some projects that fill wetlands are
<br />driven by public purpose: A highway
<br />b3/-pass in Shako pee, a new middle
<br />~~~Iln Fa~ington, a hospital op-
<br />erating room 10 St. Louis Park. Oth-
<br />ers 'are more questionable. Wetlands
<br />were filled to create a ballfield in
<br />Maple Grove, which by the city's
<br />count already had 39 ballfields. .
<br />
<br />Even projects deemed a success can
<br />have.serious side effects. Wal-Man,
<br />the glant Arkansas-based retailer is
<br />building a new store in Fridley ·
<br />w"ere it filled 2.6 acres ofwetl~nds
<br />and agreed to create S.7 acres of new
<br />wetlands. City officials were elated.
<br />B~lt Wal-Mart's new wetlands, along
<br />WIth. storm water runoff from its
<br />parking lot, will flow into the nearby
<br />Sprin~ Brook Nature Center. Wal-
<br />Mart IS the latest offour new major
<br />developments that, within the past
<br />year, have surrounded the city-
<br />owned nature center and its wetland I
<br />network. Siah S1. Clair, director of .
<br />the nature center, said storm water
<br />~n~ff already causes a 3- to 4-foot
<br />nse In the wetlands' water levels and
<br />floods nesting areas for waterfowl. I
<br />
<br />Much wetland fill, such as the Wal-
<br />Man pr?ject, is driven by growth and
<br />economics. In 1987, Mills Fleet Farm
<br />wanted to build in Oakdale and fill
<br />5.3 acres of wetlands. The store
<br />pr~!TIis~d to replace the loss through
<br />mltJ~t1o.n, and the city's community
<br />sen'lce director urged federal officials
<br />to grant the permit because of "the
<br />financial benefits that would accrue
<br />to th.e city." The permit eventually
<br />was Issued, the mitigation was com-
<br />pleted and the store was built.
<br />
<br />Still other projects compound dam-
<br />age caused by earlier wetlands loss.
<br />In a subdivision in Washington
<br />County, the Corps of Engineers is-
<br />su~d a permit to fill wetland for two
<br />dnveways. The Fish and Wildlife
<br />Service, trying unsuccessfullv to stop
<br />the permit, said the wetland 'was "es-
<br />~ntial to maintaining the water qual-
<br />Ity of Clear ~ke. . . [which has)
<br />already been Impacted by residential
<br />development. "
<br />
<br />Monitoring compliance
<br />
<br />Wetlands protection in Minnesota
<br />involves a dizzying maze of overlap-
<br />ping jurisdictions and evolving regu-
<br />lations. Although a host of watershed
<br />districts and cities regulate the filling
<br />of wetlands, two agencies - the
<br />Corps of Engineers and the DNR-
<br />wield the most power.
<br />
<br />The DNR oversees large waterlogged
<br />marshes and open-water wetlands.
<br />The Corps of Engineers regulates all
<br />metro-area wetlands, but generally
<br />acts only on those that fall outside
<br />the DNR's pun.jew. Because most of
<br />the small wetlands targeted for devel-
<br />opment fall outside the state'sjuris-
<br />diction, the Corps of Engineers issues
<br />the bulk of wetland fill permits,
<br />
<br />Corps officials concede that there has
<br />been a net loss of wetland acreage
<br />despite the no-net-Ioss policy. In
<br />awarding permits, the Corps consid-
<br />ers more than just the environment;
<br />it also takes into account the need for
<br />roads, houses, utility lines and the
<br />economic benefits that come from
<br />development. Corps officials also say
<br />that they lack the resources to regu-
<br />late the smallest wetlands.
<br />
|