|
<br />Many developers have found the ar-
<br />rangement confusing. "Vou don't
<br />kno~ ifit's going to be the Corps of
<br />Engineers, the DNR, forl the water-
<br />shed district," said James Schilling, a
<br />Forest Lake developer who's often
<br />clashed with the agencies over
<br />
<br />
<br />E~sd:~eated even more co:::-
<br />sy is a federal procedure that grants
<br />blanket approval to most projects
<br />that fill less than an acre of wetlands,
<br />and requires no mitigation for de-
<br />stroyed wetlands. The streamlined
<br />procedure is designed to remove red
<br />tape that might entangle smaIl devel-
<br />opments. But critics have dubbed it
<br />the "I-acre-giveaway." Ted Rock-
<br />well, director of Minnesota opera-
<br />tions for the U.S. Environmental
<br />Protection Agency. said, "I don't un-
<br />derstand how vou can have a 20al of
<br />"no net loss' and at the same time
<br />have this hole in the program."
<br />
<br />The DNR and the Minnesota PoIlu-
<br />tion Control Agency (MPCA), in a
<br />letter to the Corps of Engineers last
<br />year, charged that the procedure "un-
<br />dermines our state directive and the
<br />federal directives to comply with a
<br />no-net-Ioss policy." Recently, the
<br />Corps of Engineers has tentatively
<br />agreed to decrease the maximum
<br />acreage it covers from I acre to one-
<br />half acre.
<br />
<br />Further complicating matters is the
<br />state's Wetland Conservation Act of
<br />.91. Its purpose is to fill in the gap
<br />the federal law by ensuring that no
<br />wetland. no matter how small. can be
<br />fiIled without mitigation.
<br />
<br />Loopholes in the laws
<br />
<br />But the law aIlows plentv of excep-
<br />tions. For instance, projeCts ap-
<br />proved during the five years up to the
<br />law's effective date ofJan. I, 1992,
<br />are exempt. Other exemptions are
<br />marred by loopholes, said Barbara
<br />Ohman of the state Board of Water
<br />and Soil Resources, the law's overall
<br />administrator. She said some devel-
<br />opers are already taking advantage of
<br />poorly worded agricultural land ex-
<br />emptions to avoid the mitigation
<br />requirements.
<br />
<br />Another concern is that the new state
<br />law ~s being a~ministered by cities,
<br />pu~tJng them m the position ofregu-
<br />lat~ng the very development they're
<br />trymg to attract. Not surprisingly,
<br />~th as. m~ny ~s nine different agen-
<br />C1:S weIghmg m on a single wetland,
<br />thmgs have often gone awry. -
<br />
<br />Da~ Utecht was in a hurry to build a
<br />spht-Ievel home in Linwood Town-
<br />ship in Anoka County on 7.7 acres of
<br />.d. More than half was wetland. \
<br />e Anoka Conservation District
<br />d the township that Utecht could '
<br />have a temporary permit, even I
<br />though details on how Utecht would
<br />mitigate weren't complete. The prob-
<br />lems multiplied, the district said,
<br />when Utecht was issued a perma-
<br />
<br />nent, not a temporary, permit. Ai-'
<br />though things were finally resolved,
<br />the process left Utecht angry about
<br />what he says is government incompe-
<br />tence: "We w~nt to pull a building
<br />permIt and thIS was dropped on us."
<br />
<br />Another complaint is that many .
<br />farmed-over wetlands are of such
<br />poor q~ality that they don't deserve
<br />~rotecuon. There are two classifica-
<br />tion systems for wetlands in Minne-
<br />sota identifying at least eight wet-
<br />lands types. Some often lack standing
<br />water. Many already have been de-
<br />graded by farming and road-building.
<br />
<br />"What I'm observing in the hundreds
<br />of wetlands I've seen over the years is
<br />that the quality has deteriorated sub-
<br />stantially," said Franklin Svoboda a
<br />w<<:t1a~ds consultant and wildlife biol-
<br />OgIst m the Twin Cities area.
<br />
<br />Indeed, many wetlands simplv don't
<br />look the part, which can add to the
<br />confusion for developers who don't
<br />know how to spot them. In Blaine,
<br />for example, three different experts
<br />all looked at the same wetland and
<br />came away with three different esti-
<br />mates of how big it was.
<br />
<br />The only wetlands that are universal-
<br />ly recognized. are what Ben Wopat,
<br />regulatory chief of the Corps ofEngi-
<br />n~' S1. Paul District, called "Joe-
<br />Six-Pack" ~etlands: water-logged and
<br />crowded WIth geese and cattails.
<br />
<br />PrC?blems with developers
<br />WhIle. some developers are sophisti-
<br />cated In approaching wetlands, oth-
<br />ers have less experience. An industri-
<br />al park that was being developed bv
<br />Cu~ Leibel and Lenny Dupree near
<br />Whue Bear Lake was 'temporarily
<br />halted by the Corps of Engineers be.
<br />ca~se "somebody reported us," com-
<br />pl31ned Leibel. Bill Short, a White
<br />Bear Township official, said the proj-
<br />ect drained into Bald Eagle Lake and
<br />tJ:te two men had little experience
<br />either as developers or with wetlands.
<br />
<br />SchilI~ng, the Forest Lake developer.
<br />was gIven an after-the-fact permit in
<br />1988 when regulators found he had
<br />alreadyfiIled wetland. Now, he's .
<br />back again at a new location. This ~
<br />time, said the Army Corps ofEngi- .
<br />n~rs, he'd filled 5 acres of wetland. .
<br />WIthout a permit as part of a new h
<br />industrial park in Chisago County. .
<br />
<br />Earlier this year, Savage city oftic~s
<br />approved the filling of more than' U
<br />acre of wetland in the northwest pan
<br />of the city without having a Corps.of
<br />Engineers permit. Savage city admm-
<br />, istrator Mark McNeill argued that :
<br />II the city, which had applied for a..~
<br />permit, had to proceed with the fi1J..i
<br />because streets in the adjoining con-
<br />strUction area were already tom UP.I'
<br />A~, ~ere were still new foads .;;cL.
<br />utllny hnes to put in before winter ..
<br />shut down the construction ~_i
<br />
<br />When tbe Corps of Engineers 's~
<br />o~ the permit, the city went ahead
<br />WI~ the work anyway, The Corps 0{
<br />Enl?neers tben issued a cease and "
<br />deSist order. No decision has been ..
<br />made. yet on whether to issue the ' :
<br />perynn aft~r the fact. or take puniti'o.'c
<br />action agamst the city.
<br />
<br />M~ny developers complain that the:.
<br />strtcter wetland laws have drastically
<br />undercut propeny values. Ed Engler
<br />I ofTowle Real ~sute is trying to sell it
<br />2.2-acre parcel m Crysul in which I
<br />half the land IS wetlands. EniUer said
<br />he hopes he can lure a fast-food res.
<br />taurant to thl: site.
<br />
<br />Bu.t the propcny. despite being zoned
<br />I neighborhood commercial, ma\' o.nlv
<br />fetch S 1.1 0 a square foot. far It>Ss .
<br />th.an the $3 to $4 it would bring;
<br />wnhout wetlands. said Engler. Ironi-
<br />call}:. the first call Engler said he
<br />received about the property was frora
<br />a man who wanted to get rid of some
<br />fill by dumping it on the wetland. .
<br />
<br />Suburbs get involved .
<br />
<br />As anI:\\' sensiti\'ity toward wetlands
<br />emerges. many Twin Cities suburbs'
<br />have begun to pay more attention to.
<br />. them. A few ha\'e adopted specific
<br />I wetl~nd ordinances. even if it means
<br />buckmg dl:velopers.
<br />
<br />Wetland protection has been forced'
<br />~n cities such as Maple Gro\'e, whicb
<br />IS lad.en with wetlands and is now .
<br />openmg ItS remaining vacant land to
<br />deve~o~rs. When Highpointe HiIl. a
<br />subdmslOn with jO single-family
<br />homes. was proposed. citizens com- ,
<br />plained it would destroy too many .
<br />wetlands. That led the cit\' to form a
<br />wetlands task force. -
<br />
<br />!
<br />
<br />A few suburbs. such as Mahtomedi
<br />and <;hanhassen, ha\'e been more ag~
<br />gresslve. Mahtomedi adopted a wet-
<br />land ordinance last Januar\' and John
<br />Olinger. the citv administrator. said
<br />he personally ~ent out and counted..
<br />the city's wetlands. The total: 125. '
<br />varying from one-quaner acre to 17 ,
<br />acres. The new ordinance requires. I
<br />both a 75-foot setback from the edge
<br />of a wetland for new construction
<br />and a permit for any building ....ithin'
<br />that area. ,.',;
<br />
<br />Despite these effons. the debate ove;'.
<br />what takes precedence, wetlands or , I)
<br />development. is expected to continue.
<br />as suburbs develop farther out, and
<br />the demand grows for housing, road~)
<br />shopping centers and parks. . :'.'.:
<br />
<br />'*"ll
<br />"There's really no land a developer.:....
<br />can buy on which you don't have to...
<br />deal with wetlands in one way or ';Ii~
<br />another," Svoboda said. "It's tough,;...
<br />to miss them all, and if you do miss,.;
<br />them all, you've got fewer houses.'~:.~~
<br />
|