The URL can be used to link to this page

3755 Nicols RdINVOICE 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122•1897 V?'lf ? c TO: ity oF aegan 681-4600 Equal OpportunitylAf/irmative Action Employer 6t -p65 ' r , C?1?1&0;. S QT?N, SUPL?2VI?JR Date. 2/23/9?l '-'C' ;;;W yra0=2 Bi?JZH EISTi & C3?''y,DL= Sr..? VICG DIaHO? EiLNRY 5I4J.PPI,E PLDk2AL XDG 1 GTTvR1T ll97t? L kmm tA 55571-4(15F ? E) xccram vAven PLATILOCATION: 10-r1800-021-57 AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Sbecial Arssess?ienta (nrincipal orrlv 71 ? TOTAL q 7= Invoice Prepared By: D I:zvi name department WHITE - Customer YELLOW - Remittance PINK - Department GOLD - Finance TOTAL DUE UPON RECEIPT - 9Znn/?&(oa, Improvement Date Amount Annual Years ? Payment Receipt Date STREET SURF. STREET RESTOR. GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK 4 1968 2418.50 80.62 30 ? . 3Jl - SEWER LATERAL WATERMAIN WATER LATERAL WA7ER AREA , Sa- STORMSEWTRK 1979 14,429;02' 721.45 20 /-If.g STORM SEW LAT CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN, BUILDING PER. SAC PAR IC ?fL?.SL, Q.?3??dQ??ls.I?GG? ?Lv?. ! ?i ?•Q/ I ? 5 Q?t??. Z`?l.s.??.. ?t "044--L C.[.l 7c l? 7??5 . 62 .?"e-?. /?/U',csl'? • ?, ??-? ?-,? ??,r?•?`°",... . ( ? >?./' ? /9 9. , 7o21' s 7 ?° ? y 9gg. , R?C `Jl?',u?'`' S?4. 8? `^?jC?CG••-,ct-F? G?t. 1979 ?yTl.L>t•..v;? - // I `? ya9' a ? Y OF EAGAN Remarks Additio ' Lot Blk Parcel 10 01800 020 57 Owner Street State Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receip Date STREET SURF. STREET RESTOR. GRADING C) 5AN SEW TRUNK SEWER LATERAL WATERMAIN WATER LATERAL WATER AREA y STORM SEW TRK STORM SEW LAT CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN. BUILDINgJ'f R. SAC P K ?a,t? ?t..ut?? ?LLc•-, c ?c' ,?c.??t??- ?C?L?r„e?.?-- ..?r?'? f ? 19& e D /D &n D4O = a Y OF EAGAN Remarks.? Addicio Section 18 Lot Owner Street ? 10 01800 010 i Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Rece' Date STREET SURF. STREET RES70R. 1 ; GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK SS@ u er parcel 3242 SEWER LATERAL WATERMA I N WATER LATERAL WATER AREA - 1977 10 322.20 $6 .l 15 STORM SEW TRK STORM SEW LAT CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN. BUILDIN R. SAC K LAW OFFICE8 'LUTHER M.STALLAND NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER / MINNEAPOLI3, MINNESOTA 66491 SUITE 810 / 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH pHONE: 812/835-5577 March 1, 1978 Mrs. Anna Goers ? City o£ Eagan p?fj, ??g?p pal 5J 3795 Pilot Knob Road ?"¢' ? Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: Assessment Breakdown, Section 18, Township 27, R.ange 23 Dear Ann: Hi and how is everything with you? One of these days I'm going to be out that way long enough to have lunch. Ann, I am enclosing copy of letter from Dakota County with tax breakdown on above-mentioned parcel. As you will note, they state we will have to secure information from City of Eagan as to special assessment breakdown For years 1976, 1977 and 1978. This is portion which State of Minnesota took for Cedar Avenue Bridge improvement. If you have any question, please call. We have to submit this information to the State in order to get a refund on portion o£ taxes we paid on land they acquired. Thanks. Glskaft ?LY Secretaxy to N1r. Stalland ? PAPERS .. '::... ,vc.,. .-? : .:.. - .. , Q U ? ., ? parcei of lendttie Army Corps of Engineers havedetermlrred as a ? Avenue and Niwls Road. ?.? C?? Y luable na(uca iid Col Josep 'orps,, _ ._, _. ....,a, . .... ....,. ..a. 5? u ed Co.. water in springs) to determin es_ oa --whether or not it could bi - - aboat nineacres betvseen Cedar ` ciassified as a weUand. All thm Avenue arid:iVicols'Raad; just categories met weUanc southoftheMknesotyRiver;on classifications "without i behalf of Beure Co. Beure' Co, shadow of a doubt." Smith said is a Stalland family partnership. He further classifed the am But the Corps of Engineers 'as a calcareous fen. °Calcareai: Oct. 10 denied Stalland's permit fens are a plant commurtitv? on< request. The permit would'have . wet and springy site. with an in allowed Stalland to briag in ternal flow oF water rich ir IlO,oDO cubic yards of fill to calcium and magnesium bicar- stabilize the peat, muck and binates." He said the fens are loam soils on the site. maintained' solety bc ground Stalland`sprojectwasappmw water springs: and certain ed by the,Eagan City Cauncii plants. '•. last fall, but-theCorpsovetniled . Various `threatened ptaat the decision, .saying they had species wer'e.toUnd on the site. jurisdiction because it is a ' Smithsaid•.'PheNicolsMeadou wetland. Corps appravat is m- fens contain•six species of planls quired for flling and draining identified aseither threatened or activilies in wetlands under the of special coneern status by the federal Clean Water Act of 19,72. state o( Minnesofa " He also "The benefits the project listed 14•'plant. yarieties that might provide-are ariweighed maintain the mineral content of by the detriments asociated the water. •. with the ckshvetion of .nwre "The area is valuabie `to than nine acres of wetland: The " waterfowl as a reprbcLrctive:Hnd project would, pr`ovide little feeding site." he said. public benefit and tvqtTd per- The wetland was partialh manen8y depnve the pubik of a ?„eNQ: TQ?P? fu4 __ $S1 Photos of deer grazing on the Buere' Co. parcef teken by Mery Ramnadne Developer wants compensation From Page 1A fill. If:the Corps think the land is the west side of Harnack Creek ! so valuable then they shauld 6uy to the DNR in eacchange for a destroyed when Cedar Avenue it and turn it into a public park or permit to destroy the alleged H as construcied, Smith said. public faciliry. But the Corps threatened plants," he said. The Fill used for Cedar Avenue. refuses to take the properry, Stalland said the idea of trout in cut the parcel away fmm the carte blanche. This (decision) is . the creek or rare plants growing river. Smith said the parceCs without precedent, it will on the land "is a jake." underground springs must be damage property owriem' rights Attention over the land was ted from areas o[her [han the all along the Minnesota River," raised to the Corps, to 247 river and tha[ was why the area he said neighbors and to public officials u•as preserved. The Ccups decision was given last October by Mary and Smith's findings supported after an unusually long study, Sheldon Ramnarine. "I was natural preservation of the site buth Stalland and Smith said. flabbergasted when I first found and resulted in the denial. The decision on the land was ex- out. Why would anyone want to Sialland, an attorney, said he pected last July, but was build out there, I tFrought. We planned to sue the Corps in delaYed until Oct. 10, once on re= feed the deer and they come Fecleral District Court for mfrv 9uest of S[a!]and. right up our driveway," Mary inging his private property "We requested a delay in Ramnarine said. The Ram- rights. He said state and federal order W gather additional infor- narints' land abuts the Stalland governments will not buy his mation for additional qucstions property. Their home is at 37&5 land which is worth about ' by the Corps during our applica- Nicols Road. $500,000. "Right now the land is tion process. This in no way ex- Mary Ramnarine made phone worth nothing. Here we have in- Cuses theU' perFormance or lack calls, wrtlte letters and knocked verse condemnation. The of performance. The Cmps has ondooistobloclzconstructionin federal government is taking all ' delayed the projeci since its in- the 24-acre wetiarid. "I'm happy reasonable use of the property," itial application ,in November and relieved with the Corps deci- The property has been zoned 1989, that was 11' monfhs ago: sion, but this is just one battle for light industrial use since 1960. They have deprived us use of our out of many. Stalland is used to Stalland said. He said 12 acrns i ProPertY.•, Sfatland said,,sk,iI .* ; getting his way. This Is only the, were acquired aboul 20 years Stalland woWd need another beginning; he will take the Corps ago wifh plans to develap it permit for cortshvction by the and sue, she said. someday, ! aepartment'-Naturil Ramiu3rine said she will not The light industrial zaning was Resources ( DNR ). ThePolluda[, celax tantil the land is rezoned adapted by the Metropolitav'r; Control Agency and; ihe DNk•, from ..1'tght industrial to Council when it approved seid fill couldaker,.ttte at'?'s=s ,; agricuttucat use. "It is easy to ' Eagan's comprehensive lahd 1 'drainage and'i9am6ge fhe sur- ,.;. take agricultural land and use guide. Zoning throughout fhe' ' iownding area including trout'in rezone it commercial. But tty to city is esfablished m the gui4e HarnaCk Craek-: and NiCOI's take commercial land and ,' If you l0014 atctlbe f3.S,,L(30ni°? biest?oWv3?i'oh?"?i`fl?iA?'q' •retene_'?t?;kO ttyr,an 6e preserved 'tutiAmenElm nt f Ve" yid -•?At ou? poth!°?d?e, at? ?? on`?d as a,naWral pazk . ,. ? ? µ, •? ,;+ ' w?os ? ? ? / / , V 7 4aJ/ 9 q ? • i ,I ? •'?l ?•4. ! ? n K /? ? d / v1i ''? P' ` aM p i 1 p'.? , '( l , ? A } s . } ?.. p ? n'rf: Oa9 ( P'Yaw ,, N ?? ? '?C?j CRy , . VEGETATION COMMUNIiy "- . CIILCAREOtIS FEN i- WET MEP001M . . . • . . .. ' SHAUB-CAPR' . . ? . . -LOWLANO HAqOW000 UPLANO HAROWOOD . , ....... EMERC[Ni Nicols Meadow Wetland complex vegetation communities 4 _.. \ A A? •A . ? ,?•r ?? r•?? \? . 1 ? i; z .,--- Paa.n.anuRv oaAario a imml CEbAR SPACE CENTEfl A607fON' st? on, e ! °ederal government is not' to A .tions with? the DNR, we ten .1 and you rvn +nto fhe almighty,_ Buere, Co.,s plans ior the IAnd.'s L•ke P.r'?vate ProPertY without ;tativelY @? that,ifwe P>otthe,v dollar.;.+Phe laM simplg:isn'E'; `,- ,.., ,jatcanpensatroa Wecannotdo ?X01Cps_T.permit'approved,.'-wa'd; wM'Eh as much to its.owners:.if .., y L . ; ,Owner's; victor?: t?ver land-use rules.? $5& 600 an acre By Deaa ReboBon[ Staff Wricer The money - more than $40,000 an acre - - any economic value from his property ; ,. .' mazket value about one-tenth of what he went ro Luther Stalland, an Edina land specuta- - ' claimed it was worth. How much would you pay for a little fen? tor. He bought the Ract for S1,200_an acre,in . 1970, when he was Eagan's ciry attomey, The total payment $761,818. Put another.way, federel taxpayers anted up $58,600 for_each of ,_T'he cas6 exemplifies a gowing national con- If yau're the federet goveroment, the answer is 5525 000 T'haYs how much it recentl id f The govemment alw paid E236,818'. to settle a" l i b h tfiose 13 boggy acres, which will become part of the Minnesota Valley Nationai Wildlife Refuge:, Wct betweea land regulators and private prop- erty- owners, and thaYs the subject of three , .. y pa or a:13-acre weUaud in Eagan that includes a awsu roug t t by Stalland. That money is to„ compensau him for losses incurred during the - The Justice Departmentagre ed to the settle-' m?oc'suiu ezpected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court this year . calcareous fen, a rue type of wetland. six years in which federal environmentai regu-': . meneven though some federsl offcials had ... " lations allegedly prevented him_&om gaamng;: argued that Stalland's land had' an'assessed:;' Feu continued on page SA MONDAY/February 240992 -4 =•? ;; ?;?- ?'N rtEW` S-F A P E'R O F ° T H E'?; ~F'? W T'N C! T-?I E , , . . Fen/ Just Coutinaed from page lA The oourt's decisions could Lave or impliwtions for tandowners, Velopers, environmentalisu and govemment regulators. A basic issue beforo the court is w6ether land-use regulatioas deny some landowners the effective uae of their property without just compensation,", as the Constitution requires, That could mean anything from fed- nat reguladons ;nunded co protecc weNands, at was t6e issue in Eagan, to state land-use niles and loca] zon- ing ordinances Although towa cauns niled against landowneis m eacL of the thne suits, DjoPertY-nghts advocaks Lave bcen encouraged by the decision of the conservativo-leaning Supreme Court to review the issue: Sut tLat womes environmentalists, who already coa- und that the $US11 minietmj?Op iV8Dt5 t0 gllt 180A-LSC 7EgttlBtiODS t0 apPease proPertYowner groups. But enviroumentaliSts concede that, in artain cases, government agencies bear wme liability for 6aving "tak_ en" private ProPeRY. SimPly Put, bY restri_chng use of that land, agencies depnve the owner of a certain amount of economic 6enefit Decid- u?g the utent of the deprivation is what frequenUy divides the two sides, and property owners are in- arasinglv turning b the courts to resolve t6e dispuu. «7'he federal governmrnt has suf- fered adverse, court judgnents in some of thae cases and, in euery case, the govemment Las to Ggare out how ezposad it is (to adverse compensatjon' questi ?.- mate use of the governmant's "police ELOOMINC?ZON'?? `. .power." It also ruled ?hat the state's r.convol over privau property served q?mportant pubGc p such se ?environmentalprotechoas ;Ttie Fagan case u similar, but was iewlved wit6out a final decision by ? ?.the U.S. Court of C7aims in Was a4 `i?ion, D.C., where Stalland filed lus e:suit The plaintiff was BeurECo, a ?.limited partnership now owned en- Qo?ve?m??M tirely by Stalland . e bought 25 acres foi $30,000 in 0, 1970, when he was Fagap's city attor- ,?? and peisuaded city officiaLs to *»s? ?s ? , iezone the tract from "aAicultwal,• W••light indu'st?ial,,• tLus allowing ,for potential future development 1mlle and resigned from the ciry post Sya,nehiap 1972. He got $67,000 in 1979,. wfien the state condemned about Latf. judgments)," said John Echevenia ,- thb tract for highway canstruction counael for the National Audubon Society. . "If t6e govemment can buy land for a cheaper price ihat it would have to 'P?Y ? a Sna1 court judgmen; it m?ght make sense to do that" 'I'he Audubon Society is supporting South Carolina in oae. of the wses pending in 1he Supreme Cour[, Soath Carolina is being suedby David Lu-' cas, whose plan to build a home on his beachfront property was blocked by state environmental lew. He sued for wmpensation, chazging that he wes denied economic use of Iris land Lucas was awarded $1.2 million by a state court, biat the South Carolma Supreme Court reversed the award, ruling that the state's contrnl over beachfront development was a legiti- Statland then planned to 5ll part of Lis remaining 13 acres with spil to ' allow privace development. That aroused area residents, wLo charged 'that the project would harm natnrat resources, including the calcereous fea Because of the'u unusuai chemi- cal characteristice, such feus can sup port cerlain rare plants. T'he Army Corps of F,nginceis deniad : Stalland's request fora permit, saying "the projecCs potential beneSts would be outweighetl by its harm W the environmenk , . In 1985, at the start bf the feud with the Army Corps, a professional ap- praiser hued by Stalland said the 13 acres was worth $482,500 if he ob tained the permit but was virtuapy worthless without it, The Army Ster Tribune/ Monday/February 24/1992 ion may be Corps stressed that tAe wetland had an arsessed market value of $50,600 ;attLattima .. .. .. But the Cocps eonceded that it was arguable whether that Sgure repro- sented the price thai Stalland could obtain on the open market The Vact obviously had paten1ia11y high com- mercial value bxause of its strategic lacation near a busy highway in fatb gowing Dakota County and Stal- land once was offered E240,OD0 for about Lalf the uact by a company that wanted to build t6ere. 7'6e deal collapsed because he couldn't obtain the federal permit. Stalland then sued thegovernment But Lis attomey, 76omas A. Iarsup of MinneapoGs, stressed that Stalland did not challenge the legality of t6e .4rmy Corps' denial of the permit. Rather, Isrson said, the suit charged that t6e Corps' action "amounted to a taking.of private property without just compensation." T'hat is, by not allowing consWction, t6e govern- ment had "talcen^ Stalland's property without any compensatioa. The Justice Department asked that Stalland's suit be dismissed T'he m quest was denied by Claims Court Judge Roger Andewelt. In a written opinion, Andawelt said he "cannot conclude that the (Army Cotps' decision) left open xonom?- cally viable use" oC Stalland's wet- Isnd He also said, ••It is possible that additional facts may ultimatcly dem- onstrate that the Corps' decision has not deprived (Stalland) of all bene5- cial use of ttis land." Andewelt added that he was willing ? ;•;SA *,. answered: to ezamine the economic e8'ecu of the Army Co:ps' actions on.Stal- land's ability - or inability- to pro5t from his property, 7'hat eppar enIIy was a atrong signaj to fede;l attorueys that ffie judge tather.tLeu thay. ultimatety would decidC hoW much Stalland might receive. ?;; That led to sctt]ement negotiari'ons t" with Stalland, and the goverpmbnt recently sent him s checE for $761,818. '• Stalland, 65, is now semiretiirfTrpm practicing law. He was asked-last week if 6e thought the money was adequate compensauon. "I have to say that I am somewbst satisfied The tLing that really-dis? turbed me was the amount of ttmi it took to conclude this tLing If's;iri= credible that the government dx7'this w me for six yeazs." James Hrookshire> a top Justige De- partment attomty, also was asked jo comment on the settfemenL? 7n ;a written staumrn; he said: .' - "The department routinely:ev?a3tiafes its cases from a settlement peispeo- tive. This Las long been an aspect in `takings' litigation and it is . uuirr markable that regu]atory tatittg3 ]gw would be approached the same way: Not all cases art settled but; some are." . - , ?...•,,; -?:, c; ?t ?y . • . `y . ' } \ y _. ? ? ?? - ?wn?xo uau ?OYM? Ii Y . k _ February 23, 1978 II_I K I?T:# (' 11 U A"T Y •DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ISGO HWY. 59-HASTINGS. MINNESOTA 55033 Mr. Iuther M. Stalland nttorney at Law '. 810 Northwestern Financial Center 7000 Xerxes Averrue South Miimeapalis, Mn. 55431 RE: TAX BREAKDOWN, SECTION 18 CITY OF EAGAN Dear Mr, Stalland: SEYMOUR B.OLSON ASSESSOR TELEPHONE: 612-437-3191 EXT. 251 ni0-(D Followi.ng is the breakdown of taxes for the yeazs 1976, 1977 and 1978 ' on the 11,66 acres of land in section 18, township 27, range 23 which has now gone to the State of Minnesota, Original Parcel Number: 10-01800-010-60 - -57 1976 ta}ces -- State portion $ 222,82 Halance 258,00 $ 480,82 +$ 59.90 special assmts,* j ; 1977 taxes -- l State portion $ 246.82 ? Balance 282.08 ! $ 528.90 + $ 1,854.54 spec. assmts.* 1978 taxes -- State Portion $ 271,94 Balance 346.82 ? $ 618,76 + $ 1,653.78 spec, assmts.* ; 1 The special assessments for each of the years will have to be divided by the City of Eagan. f /-- . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. / /- Sincerely, Gloria Pinke Administrative Asst. TAL AN f_GUAL GPPORiUNITY FWPLOYFR F i ? .i _ . F.... , STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY 0F DAKOTA Beure' Co., a Minnesota partnership, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF EAGAN, a municipal corporation, Respondents DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL /o Di,roo Oa/ 57 It is hereby agreed by and through the respective attorneys for the parties in the above entitled matter involving an appeal from.certain special assessments by Beure' Co., a Minnesota partnership, by its attorney, Luther M. Stalland, and the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, by its aYtorney, Paul H. Hauge, do hereby stipulate and agree to dismiss the appeal with prejudice and without cost to either party on the fo].lowing conditions: 1. Eagan shall levy special assessments for storm sewer trunk purposes against the property hereinafter described consisting of 12.97 acres which Beure' Co. certifies is the total acreage owned by Beure` Co. South of the Chicago North- western Railroad right of way in Lagan. Eagan shall apply its normal 20% credit for unplatted land asainst the total acreage leaving a residue to be assessed of 10.38 acres or 452,152 square feet cahich shall be assessed at the rate of $.039 per square foot covering the Cedar Avenue storm sewer trunk Project 11227A. AK 2. Eagan shall grant a 15% credit against the balance resulting in 384,330'/S!98Y ? square feet of assessable area. ytir ? 3. It is further understood and agreed that in the event that Seure' Co., i: its heirs or assigns, at any time in the future,shall request through the City of ? i Eagan for a use or building permit on any part or all of the hereinaEter described f:., . property for industrial purposes that the storm sewer trunk assessment rate then in existence in the City of Eagan shall be levied against the entire parcel, ur the portion thereof used for industrial or commercial purposes from which shall be subtracted the amount of the storm sewer trunk assessment levi,ed against the property in 1978. Dated: , 1979. CITY OF EAGAN ? r, ' I `By• i, -- _ :? ' - - zcs yor. sy: ?,. Attest: Iti: ? ? Its City Clerk. PAUL H. HAUGE 6 ASSOCIATES, P.A. A7TORNEVS AT LAW PAUL H. HAUGE 3908 SIBLEV MEMORIAL HIGHWAY BRAOLEY 5MITH ? EAGAN f5T. PAUU. MINNESOTA 55722 May 22, 1979 ? Mrs. Anna Goers Assessment Clerk CITY OF EAGAN i 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Beure'Co. storm aewer assessment appeal AFEA COOE 612 TELEPHONE 454-4224 Dear Anna: Would you please review the Stipulation of Dismissal, a copy of which I am attaching to this letter, to make certain that my computations are correct. If they are correct, please make a note op-.this letter and return it to me. yours, H. Hauge PHH:me attach. I'?-L_ ?-G??E,£e? Lt.?. ? -?-e?c.? ? • ? ID ?)/Flod n,?i 5-7 NOTICE OF APPFAL TO DISTRICf COIJRT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CITY OF EAGAIi IMPROVEMffiNT PROJECTS # 198A AND 227A To: Alyce Bolke. City Clerk, City of Eagan NOTICE IS HEHEBY GIVEN That Beure'-Co., a Minnesota paztner- ship, vill, and hereby doee, appeal to District Court, First Judicial Dietrict, the epecial asaeeement ageinat ite property for City of Eagan Improvement Projeate # 198A and 227A, adopted September 28, 1978. Dated: pctober 10. 1978 $torney for aqd partner of Beure'-Co. 810 Northwestern Financial Cmater 7900 Xexxes Avenue South Mioaeapolie. Mlmesota 55431 835-5577 Setvice admitted thie day of October, 1978. Alyce lke City Cierk, City of Eagan ^ j ?+ . ??y p BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA DATE July 11, 1989 RESOLUTION NO. $9-523 MotionbyCommisaioner Loeding -- SecondedbyCommiesioner Chavdelaine BE IT RESOLVED,That the following Applications for a change in tax status be approved as recommended by the County Assessor: Luther M. Stalland I110-01800-021-57 Eagan, City of The subject property has been denied a fill permit by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Since the property cannot be developed or used for any commercial purpose the recommendation is to reduce the 1985 and 1986 assessments to $2,600. The Assessor has recognized the problem and made adjustments for 1987,1988 5 1989. Luther M. Stalland lI10-01700-010-52 Eagan, City of The subject property consists of 3.17 acres and is zoned agricultural. Prior to the survey the parcel was condisered to have access to Highway f113. The survey identifies the parcel as being landlocked, long & narrow. Considering adverse effects these factors have on the value of the property, the recommendation is to reduce the values as follows. The 1987 estimated market value should be reduced from $33,400 to 31,000. The assessed value should be reduced from $13,360 to $12,400. The 1988 estimated market value should be reduced from $36>700 to 31,000. The assessed value should be reduced from $14,680 to 1,268. YES X Harria Harria X Maher Meher Chapdelelne x Chapdeleine Loodinq X Loeding 7tirner X Turner State of Minnesota County of Dakote NO . I, Nmma B. Mere6, duly elected, qualified end ecting County Auditor o[ the County of Dakota, 3tete of Minnesota, do hereby certify thet 1 heve compared the foregoing copy of e reeolution with the original minutes of the proceedinge oi the Board of County Commieaionere, Dekote County, Minnesots, et their aeaeion held on the llth day ot July 1a 89 , now on tila in my offlce, snd heve found the eeme to be a true and correct copy thereof. WilneeemyhendandofflcialaealatHaeWnge,Minneaota.thie 18th dayof .Tul 1989 Coonty Aaditor 11 city oF eagan THOMASEGAN Mayol PATRICIA AWADA January 6 1994 SHAWN HUNTER , SANDRA A. MASIN THEODORE WACHTER Coundl Members FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE S- - z THOMAS HEDGES (o ATTN: CAROL OLSON (RE) a(D ciry ndm??istiaior BISHOP HENRY WHIPPL.E FEDERAL BLDG E. J. VAN OVERBEKE 1 FEDERAL DRIVE, ROOM 610 aHCiark FORT SNELLING MN 55111-4056 Dear Ms. Olson: Deanna Kivi has forwarded to me the faxed copy of a letter to me dated April 29, 1993, regarding Federal ownership of parcel 10-01800-021-57 located in the City of Eagan. I apologize for not responding to the letter previously although I have no recollection of having received it and cannot find the original. The City is well aware of the fact that the Federal Government does not pay property taxes and is not subject to special assessments on property it owns. However, it is my understanding that assessments levied before title passes to the Federal Government or its agencies remain with the property and the property is taken subject to the assessment lien. Payment of assessments which are a matter of public record at the time the property changes ownership, is to be negotiated by the buyer and the seller. The City is not a party to those negotiations and cannot be held responsible for the failure of either the buyer or seller to properly process the transaction. It is my position that the assessmenu remain a lien against the property and are to be paid. If I can further explain or clarify this position, please contact me in writing or by telephone. Sincerely, ?V ?-- E..1?Vanoverbeke Finance Director/City Clerk cc: Deanna Kivi EJV/jeh "' ? MUNICIPAL CENTER ? ? THE LONE OAK TREE 3830 ellOi KNOB ROAD EtSYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY EAGAN. MINNESOiA 55122-1897 /,L S7?? PHONE: (612) 681-4600 FAX: (612)681-4e12 Equal Opportunlty(Affirmative Action Employer iDD:(612) 454-8535 - MAINTENANCE FACILITV 3501 COACHMAN POINi EAGAN. MINNESOiA 55122 PHONE: (612) 681-4300 Fnx: (aiz) aet-aabo iDD:(612) 454-8535 I...,. i . . ? . .,.. , •r:."?.h?? .. _.r.:?+a.c'.ak? ? . . ••••?•?• ?, ?•:•:••• nmr...°,.?F'?X,_,'Ohx- -`n.,.T,?!'?'.? .s.f.? . ,.. . • 1 ?• ? • ?"'ngn^^^. ..... ... . ... . ' ^ .. . , . ' . DAKOTA COUNTY MINNESOTA . . • I :it:, WF. i .1. RECEIP7 FOR PAYMENT OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENTS ? I ? ?/ . k1ECEIP7 N?S ?.:. °? 51895 ? ; DATE . NAME: ? . .N S ?.{ 'T.GQ? n LI Q'.R. ?? ,(X .P ? . t.C.P? LLLl?r C'4?4n.?i V2QpyLI ` . . ? , ADDRESS:, - .CGW[.a,& ? , . .. .4 ? ? • 4: ` . } 1 DESCRIPTION: ,( ( ..'., ? ?? - DISTRICT ' ?tv PLAT 10 1300 . PARCEL NO. Oa./ CMECK D?GI? MUNICIPALITV I 112 UI HI 1 1241 ?? . I IMPROVEMENT ? P INi. °e FROM TO ORIGINAL AMOUNT PRINCIPAL ? INTERE57 . ?iOTAL? PAID ? . ? ` 7 I, (:7•36) Paid BePore Certification E] (77=4) . pre0ayment 0 (77= 5) PaiO in Full E.(78 = 1) Partial Paid Ll (78 = 2) PHEPAR ED BV NORMA B. MARSH, County Auditor gy: . PREPARED BY MUNICIPALITY OF: .• &,yv BY: r(la. cc.1 w 7hia Receipt does not include the instailment certified to the 19 taxea. .. . . . ? ? If poyment is made by check, this is nat o valid receipt until check is paid. P , ;(NAME) . . , , . . POSTED BY: ? . ? . . ? ?DATE ' . ? . '. ? AUDITOR'S COPY .. , „ . . pI,SIAICT ..E&-iLfSHE7t .... SPECIAL J188E68MENT8 INPUT FORM - AU0170R 6J1-li?MC ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ?.? DISZAiB-DZST ? ? BE?YEAA l % ? I1D-YFJIltS ..lIPS? VAft ?7l?? ? ? ? ? REX;ZlLJ1A II?Pi? ? ? ? ? ZCrAL aSSE5:+1'1t271' r _ Mart ictlvity ?lIEN 1LSS£541Etmi?-PJIflESLS ^DELINQ=Atiti[A?IS JSSESSy6TtP UPDAIE _ AOD/UPDATE FARCEtS OiVlaton fST PUT • LO'1' 8LK 1 "SESSliENT MtOUPTI' DEF COOE EEF YrAR ACf- 10N io o/ 00 oai s 7 oo?a io ?'( ,?? v cbz/ _S7 0 tlo 7 . . / ? , .p ? • . . ? . JL _JLM . c - ctange 0 = Oeletc P - Pcint ' boolca he e t O ? Old Parccl (diviafon) N - Ncu Parccl (dlvinion) DEF CODE S - Senior ' Citizen C- Clty• -Dmtecced : ? city oF eagan --?3 - ?el 6v_et1'? - THOMASEGAN Mayor February 23, 1994 PATRICIA AWADA SHAWN HUNTER SANDRA A. MASIN THEODORE WACHTER CAROL S OISON, SUPERVISOR Council Members REALTY MANAGEMENT BRANCH THOMAS HEDGES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Clty Administrafor BISHOP HENRY WHIPPLE FEDERAL BLDG E. J. VAN OVERBEKE 1 FEDERAL DRIVE ariaafk FORT SNELLING MN 5511-4056 Re: Special Assessments Parcel No. 10-01800-021-57 Dear Ms. Olson: In ofi'icial action of the Eagan City Council at its regular meeting held February 15, 1994, your request to waive the penalties and interest on the special assessments on the above referenced parcel was approved. The City Council agreed to waive the penaldes and interest of $1,358.98 with the understanding that the principal amount of $4,731.97 would be paid. Tlus principal amount is what should have been paid when the title transferred. Please find enclosed a City of Eagan invoice requesting payment of $4,731.97. By copy of this letter, I am requesting that the Dakota County Auditor's Office remove all outstanding balances currently listed as due and owing on this parcel. Thank you for your assistance in clearing up this matter. Sincerely, ? E . anOverbeke Finance Director/City Clerk cc: Dakota County Auditor Marsh Accountant II Fink Assessment Clerk Kivi Encloswe EJV/jeh MUNICIPAL CENTER 3630 PI107 KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122-1897 PHONE: (612) 681-4600 FAJ(: (612) E81-4612 TDD: (612) 454-8535 THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOI OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNffV Equal Opportunlty/Aftlrmatlve Acilon Employer MAINTENANCE FACILITV 3501 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 PHONE: (612) 681-4300 FAX: (612) 681-4360 TDD: (612) 454•8535 4111?,MV oF ecgan THOMASEGAN Moya Febiuary 23, IS% PATRICIA AWADA SHAWN HUNTER SANDRA A. MASIN THEODORE WACHTER CAROL S OLSON, SUPERVISOR C°°nC1AA811DB? REALTY MANAGEMEIVT BRANCH THOMAS HEDGES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE cIIV Am„nMro„r BISHOP HENRY WFIIPPL.E FEDERAL BLDG E. J. VAN OVERBEKE 1 FEDERAL DRNE O1ry "°`° FORT SNELLIlVG MN 5511-4056 Re: Special Assessments Parcel N Dear Ms. Olson: In official action of the Eagan City Council at its regular meeting held February 15, 1994, your request to waive ffie penaldes and interest on the special assessments on We above referenced parcel was approved. The Ciry Counal agreed to waive the penalties and interest of $1,358.98 with the understanding that the principal amount of $4,731.97 would be paid. This principal amount is what should have been paid when the title transfened. Piease find enclosed a City of Eagan invoice requesting payment of $4,731.97. By copy of this letter, I am requesting that the Dakota County Auditor's Office remove all outstanding balances currendy listed as due and owing on this parcel. Thank you for yow assistance in clearing up this matter. Sincerely, V? E . anOverbeke Finance D'uector/City Clerk cc: Dakota County Auditor Marsh Accountant II Fink Assessment Qerk Kivi Enclosure EJV/jeh MUNICIPAL CENTER J&lOiLLOTKNOBROAD EA6AN, MINNESOTA 55172•7897 PNONE: (612) 681-4600 FAX: (612) 681-4612 1Dd. (612) 454-0535 THE LONE OAK TREE THE SVMBOL Of STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNrtY Equol Opportunlry/AfllrmatWe Actlon Employer MAINTENANCE FACIIIiY 9501 COACNMAN GOINT EAGAN, MMNESOTA 55122 PHONE: (612) 6814300 FAX:,(612) 681•4360 TDD:16121A5J4B575 ?13Y (?;)m PRGPERTY ZD: 10-01800-021-57 S/A# ASSESSMENT DESCRIPT 100040 SAN SW TRK (?y,4 So 100344 WATER AREA (/? 100407 STORM STRK ,( _,p 5 ?? ------ SUMMARY OF LEVIED ****** 1994 P&I CERTIFIED ------ SUMMARY OF DEFERRED ------ SUMMARY OF PENDING ------ SUNIMARY OF CLOSED AS OF: 01/27/1994 YEAR TM RATE TOTAL ANN.PRIN. 1967 30 6.0000 2418.50 80.61 1976 15 8.0000 10446.30 0.00 1978 20 8.0000 14429.02 721.45 PAYOFF CD 242.03 0.00 CL 2885.82 16847.52 802.06 3127.85T? 1110 . 00 ln st4 (I rrurj-f,`Q4 1j/O. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10446.30 l?a ? T?ts ' q 3 - FeC. /s A/) 3?5T.98 Press ENTER; or F1, F4, F5, F7, F8 pdw,,., at us Fts? u.n? w;ldl?? i ? , , 4 73 % .97 /- ?- iz (? , ?- q' ?? United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICF. Bishop Henry Whipple Pederal Building 1 Federal Drive Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056 IN REPLY NF,FP.R TO: FWS/ARW-RE January 27, 1994 Mr. E. J. VanOverbeke Finance Director/City Clerk City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122-1897 Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: As discussed in our telephone conversation earlier today regarding the special assessments on parcel 10-01800-021-57, our attorneys have advised us we can pay the principal balance due. We cannot, however, be responsible for payment of any accrued penalties or interest and hereby request that the City of Eagan consider waiving those amounts. You indicated you would possibly be able to include this matter on the agenda of the City Council meeting on February 15. If you are successful in obtaining a waiver of the penalties and interest, please provide me a statement showing the total remaining principal balance due. Upon receipt of the statement, I will order a United States Treasury check for the full amount. As you pointed out in your letter of January 6, 1994, these special assessments should have been addressed when title transferred to the United States. Since that was not the case, we are attempting to be a good neighbor and to resolve the matter at this time. It is our policy to clear title to the lands we administer. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at 725-3564. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. aincereiy 4j?a ozo,-, Carol S. Olson, Supervisor Realty Management Branch 41i'lcitV oF eagan THOMASEGAN MoyOr PATRICIA AWADA January 6 1994 SHAWN HUNTER , SANDRA A. MASIN THEODORE WACHTER Council Members FISH & WILDLIF'E SERVICE THOMAS HEDGES ATTN: CAROL OLSON (RE) CiN Atlministiotor BISHOP HENRY WHIPPLE FEDERAL BLDG E. J. VAN OVERBEKE 1 FEDERAL DRIVE, ROOM 610 city aaik FORT SNELLING MN 551114056 Dear Ms. Olson: Deanna Kivi has forwarded to me the faxed copy of a letter to me dated April 29, 1993, regarding Federal ownership of parcel 10-01800-021-57 located in the City of Eagan. I apologize for not responding to the letter previously although I have no recollection of having received it and cannot fmd the original. The City is well aware of the fact that the Federal Government does not pay property taxes and is not subject to special assessments on property it owns. However, it is my understanding that assessments levied before tide passes to the Federal Government or its agencies remain with the property and the property is taken subject to the assessment lien. Payment of assessments which are a matter of public record at the time the property changes ownership, is to be negotiated by the buyer and the seller. The City is not a party to those negotiations and cannot be held responsible for the failure of either the buyer or seller to properly process the transaction. It is my position that the assessmenu remain a lien against the property and aze to be paid. If I can further explain or clarify this position, please contact me in writing or by telephone. Sincerely, ?V E..T?Vanoverbeke Finance Director/City Clerk cc: Deanna Kivi EJV/jeh MUNICIPAL CENTER 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122-1897 PHONE: (612) 681-4600 FAX: (612) 681-4612 iDD:(612) 454-8535 iHE LONE OAK TREE THE SVMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/Aftlrmailve Actlon Employer MAINiENANCE FAqIITY 3501 COACHMAN POINi EAGAN. MINNESOiA 55122 PHONE: (612) 681-4300 FA%:(612)681-436D TDD: (612) 454-8535 ? I Go?- Lot 4 !j ? 'Y, ' \?`•, ?, ? c, • ? \\ ? / r I A\ '1 r? 010 54 4 {? YT • : 0/L'SZ U _"" - ? 3 _' _' . . . _'___ ? t3' S / . . . / ,?( ''SO si b o %?+ a? .0w> ? /v ? ' ' Y ??y OlIB?e , ?? ?'?' V } i \ ?! / •" + .. > • .' ?? Goyr lor s oai-5? L3 ` - -- - ? p `AP'c'A oII -59 012-55 \1 \ \Lr 4Sl DEC- 2-93 THU 15;38 ovrowa waes w FAX TI PWS/AflW-BB- MN Valley NWR nakoca $BUlB Co, (73) Hr. Eugena Van Ovexbaka Eagen Municipal Center 3830 Pilot Krob Road Eagan, 19N 55122 Dear Mr. tlan Werbeks: FAX N0, 6127253557 P. Ol/02 MIT7AL ?h g m ( N ?? ed? 41? . e s- ?- ?F101 GENEML5EflV1 BADIIWISTRkTI N April 29, 1993I : t ? %1o-L?,?su*LQcK h/? i? ? 2G / The anclosed tax statemant covexa land owned by the United 8tates and mastitgeC as part af ![inneaota Valley National Wlldlife Refuge. Since this land is in Fedexal owneYShip, it is exampt from real property taxes and apocial assessments. Title to Chis lsne erans£erxed to the Unitad States on SanuaYy 7, 1992 and vas made af secord that sama day in ToXrens Cextifi06ta Numher 91634 found in Voluma 214 Page 184. A capy of the TorYens CaxtificaCe is pravided fox your info=mation. I originally sent Chis iaFormationjto the Dakota County Treasurer. His offiee inPormed me that aines apeeisl assessmenes ars imvolved, I roould need to contaat you to exempt them. The a'sseaements ara for a sanitary sewer trunk and a storm semer trunk. Faderal)agencies euah as the U.S. Fiah and Wildlife 5ervice (Sernfas) may not pay taxes, apeaial assessnents, or anry oCher chaxgas levied by municipalities, local utility companies, ar ocbss organizations unless the paxticulax agency derfves a bene£ie. In this case, the Service doea not and will not dexive axry benePit since the propexCy currently is and vill reraain undeveloped. The property is a calaaxeous fen (a unique wet].and habitat,) eo we axe more coricerned wlth keaping water on it rathet than draining it, See 42 Con . Geg, 72 (1964), and 65 Comp. Oen. 692 (1986). Enalosed is a bxochute that explains the Service'a Shared Revanue Payment proceduxes. In areas wheXe the Service administers;fedarally-owned lande, snnual paymerts ara made to offset ?the local loss of Teal estaCe tax revenue. These anmual payments aYe mads to local unite of goverrnnent that levy and cvllact ieal estate eexes. It is than up to the local uniti of govexnmant tn pass these funds through ta those entftiea that tnay have lost ravenue due to the existetlce of the Fedexal projece. ?rpp? ?. fl?. ? o ?> l 8 O o I R=959o 6127253557 Ua I Is r1 ??, ' .? ?':7? i? a ?• : . ,. 12-03-93 02:35AM P001 3L33 DEC- 2-93 THU 15;38 FAX NQ 6127253557 P.02/02 Please Gake the neeeeesry steps to corroct your rsaords so that theee special aesessments no longas constitute a lien on tha prapeYty. If you have qusstions oY need additional information, please contacC me at the letteThead addrees ox by phana at (612) 725-9564. Sinaerely, Sebecca S. Halbe Realty Speoialist Division o£ RealEy Snclosuxes RE:RSHalbe; rah:4/16/93:3564 R& Feading (buara.tax) FU t ` i R=95% 6127253557 ? 12-03-93 02:35AM P002 #33 PROPERTY ID: 10-01800-021-57 AS OF: 12/02/1993 / -,/li/0 S/P.# ASSESSMENT DESCRIPT. YEAR TM RATE TOTAL ANN.PRIN. PAYOFF CD 100040 SAN SW TRK 1967 30 6.0000 2418.50 80.61 322.64 100344 WATER AREA 1976 15 8.0000 10446.30 0.00 0.00 CL 100407 STORM STRK 1978 20 8.0000 14429.02 721.45 3607.27 ------ SUMMARY OF LEVIED 16847.52 802.06 3929.91 ****** 1993 P&I CERTIFIED 1172.54 ------ SANIMARY OF DEFERRED 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------ SUMMARY OF PENDING 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------ SITPII4ARY OF CLOSED 10446.30 Press ENTER; or F1, F4, F5, F7, F8 Z.R ?/ -?/???y! c?/? ?????-• ? c?4..,-C?_ '_' _4e 1•Ci? ?i''c-cJ G'Yt_.. -- - r ?2?-?c f _ l • V i I O U ce-?r /- p -- ?7 9 . OWNER NAME AND ADDRE55 INQUIRY :CURR 302 : . PROPERTY ID Owner Change Date :NEXT . : a0-01800-021-57 01/08/1992 A;;;;;;;;;2 . OWNER . . LAST NAME FIRST M CORP TAXPAY ADDR . : Owner: USA FOR ADM BY U S FISH & Y Y N . : Addrl: WILDLIFE SRVC FEE Addr2: BISHOP HENRY WHIPPLE FED BLDG . : Addr3: 1 FEDERAL DR Addr4: FORT SNELLING MN 55111 . . Owner: . : Addrl: Addr2: • : Addr3: Addr4• • . Owner: • : Addri: Addr2: • : Addr3: Addr4: • . owner: • . Addrl: Addr2: • : Addr3: Addr4: • Type PID: press ENTER; or F1, F2, F5, FS United States Department of the Interior IN ftEl'LYREFlNTO: FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building 1 Federal Drive Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056 FWS/ARW-RE - Minnesota Minnesota Valley NWR Q WA Beure Co. (73) Mr. E. J. VanOverbeke Finance Director/City Clerk City of Eagan 3530 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122-1897 Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: Enclosed is a United States Treasury check in the amount of $4,731.97 in payment of your Invoice No. 6765 dated February 23, 1994. This payment represents a11 special assessments (principal only) on Parcel No. 10-01800-021-57. Please mail the receipt for this payment to me at the address shown above. Thank you for your assistance in obtaining a waiver of the penalties and interest from the Eagan City Council. In addition, please convey my thanks to Deanna Kivi who was also very helpful in clearing up this matter. If you have questions or need additional information, my telephone number is 725-3564. Sincerely, JA?? 6001-? Carol S. Olson, Supervisor Realty Management Branch Enclosure INVOICE 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122-7897 Z LcityoFeaqan 681-4600 Equal Opportunity/Alfirmative Ac[ion Empfoyer ro: NO 6765 r CAROL S OLSON• SLYPERVISOR , Date. 2/23/94 ?s?mw ?tnr.rw n.-...?.wn .? FISH & WILpL2FE gERVICE BISHOP fESSIItY SHIPPLE FIDg2AI, gLpG 7 rnFaar. pp,lyg L FORT SM.LZNG PMI 55511-4056 J ? PLATILOCATION: 10-01800-021-57 AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Special Assessments ( rinci al onl 3811-9450 TOTAL 4,731. 97 ? C?/ Involce Prepared By: D Kivi Finanro ? name tlepartment WHITE - Customer ?•`•O•?• YELLOW - Remittance PINK - Department TOTAL DUE UPON flECEIPT - 9%,ri? ,?1ate- GOLD - Finance t, `, W iCw fi"t.`0 1101a ?/ ????? ?• •?• ?• ?8 E771 PHONE 454-8100 --- -- ---- - --- CITY OF EAGAN- -- 3]9S PILAT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA $5122 May 24, 1979 Mr. Luther M. Stalland Northwestern Financial Center Suite 810 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, hIlV, 55431 Attention: Gladys RE: Parcel 10 01800 021 57 Dear Gladys: I have computed the amount of specials assessments on the portion of property that the State of PAn. has taken for highway right of way and they are as follows: SANITARY 5EWER TRUNK 1.50 acres unpaid 1979 balance $150.39 WATER AREA 1.50 acres unpaid 1979 balance $938.52 I am also enclosing a copy of my worksheet so you can see how these amounts were arrived at. Call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, 11 Ann Goers whc? aa.i 3j ?- 6° ?yr? "73d.7i _ 30yr5 1?'? - -a? - A? C? . X.s /. ? _ "?/48a . 90 -= /3yrS = ?7a. LAW OYPICES STAI.LAND & STALLAND 5200 WEST 73rd STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55435 August 3, 1989 Mr. Tom Hedges City Manager City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road ?}? Eaqan, MN 55122 _. RE: Property_ID #10-01800-021-57?i Old Cedar Avenue and Raiiroed Tracks 5ection 18 Property ID #1001700-010-52 Highway #13,-Sectron--17- "-- Dear Mr. Hedges: TELEP80NE (619) 636-6679 ? At your suggestion following our recent meeting, I am writing to you about my request for abatement and reduction of assessments on the above two parcels to a nominal amount to coincide with the action of the County Board regarding the real estate taxes on these two parcels. As you recall, I wrote to you about these two properties on April 27, 1989 explaining what I intended to do at the county level on the basic real estate taxes which has now been consummated. I am therefore enclosing the following documents to complete the picture for you in presenting this to the City Council on August 15. 1. Copy of the County Board's resolution regarding adjustments in market and assessed values dated July 11, 1989. 2. Copy of survey of the 13 acre parcel in Section 18 which is owned in the name of Beure-Co. of which I am the General Partner. 3. Two surveys of the Highway 13 parcel in Section 17, one showing access to Highway 13 and a total acerage of 6.13 which I had longed presumed I owned and upon which I have been paying taxes and assessments believing this to be the correct description. Also a copy from the Dakota County Plat evi- dencing this fact upon which I have long based my surmise that I owned this 6.13 acres. In addition, I am enclosing a copy of the real and true description of the parcel which I own after investigation showing the total area as 3.17 acres, and also showing that the property is landlocked and has no access to Highway 13. Mr. Tom Hedges City Manager City of Eagan Page 2 August 3, 1989 4. A letter from Marvin Pulju, Dakota County Assessor, dated July 2, 1986. The market value was reduced to $200 per acre which has resulted in a real estate tax of only $170.62. Likewise the Highway 13 parcel has been reduced in market value to an assessed value for nonhomestead of $31,000, and an assessed value of $14,680 in 1988. The result is that the actual taxes to be paid by action of the County Board is nominal in both cases and the bulk of what I have been billed for are assessments levied by the City of Eagan. Because of the pending litigation in the U.S. Court of Claims for refusal by the U.S. Corps of Engineers to grant me a fill permit, the 13 acre parcel in Section 18 has been rendered virtually worthless. I cannot develop it and I cannot sell it until this litigation comes to an end. It is therefore my request that all of the assessments since 1984 on the Cedar Avenue parcel be abated and reduced to a nominal amount to be reinstated only if and when I am successful in the litigation with the government and can either develop or market the property, and that all accrued penalties and interest except on the reduced amounts be cancelled. As to the Highway 13 parcel in Section 17, my dilema there is that I cannot sell it with no access. Unless or until one of the adjoining property owners would develop or market their properties and in the process acquire my 3.17 acre parcel, this too is virtually worthless at this time and I ask that the 1987, 1988 and 1989 assessments be abated and reduced to a nominal amount and penalties and interest be cancelled until such time as a sale of this property is consummated. amounts of the assessments for the years indicated. Attac ed 5alliand ter vm enclosure SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENTS Highway #13 Property ID# 1001700-010-52 Year Assessments 1987 $2,497.60 1988 1,741_38 1989 869.52 CEDAR AVENUE PROPERTY ID# 10-01800-021-57 Year Assessments 1985 $2,759.40 1986 2,641.12 1987 2,522.80 1988 2,404.58 1989 2,286.34 August 1, 1989 ,. N IN THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT No. 129-86 L BEURE' - CO., a Minnesota Limited Partnership, , Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, for its Second Amended Complaint against the United States of America, defendant, states and alleges as fol- lows: JURISDICTION 1. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, Amendments V and XIV; Acts of Congress and regula- tions promulgated thereunder; Title 5, United 5tates Code, Section 702, Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1346, 1491 and 2201, Title 33. United States Code, Section 1344, and all other Consti- tutional provisions and laws applicable to and concerning the rights and obligations of the parties herein set forth. PARTIES 2. The plaintiff, Beure'-Co., is a Minnesota limited partnership whose address is 7261 Ohms Lane, Minneapolis, Minne- sota 55435. The general partner of Beure'-Co. is Luther M. Stal- land, who offices at the same address. 3. The United States of America is the defendant in this matter, by and through its agency and officers, the United States Army, Corps of Engineers. 4. Defendant John 0. Marsh is the Secretary of the Army who acts through Lieutenant General E. R. Heiberg, the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, in the ad- ministration of the Clean Water Act, Title 33, United States Code, Section 1251, et sec. Defendant Colonel Joseph Briggs is the St. Paul District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, and acts under the authority of defendants John 0. Marsh, Secretary of the Army, and Lieutenant E. R. Heiberg, Chief of Engineers. Hereinafter, these defendants are referred to as the "COrps." FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5. Land owned by Beure'-Co. is located within the cor- porate limits of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, be- tween the old Cedar Avenue Highway and the new Cedar Avenue Free- way, and bounded on the north by Burlington-Northern Railroad tracks. For the past 15 years the land has been and is currently -? ? zoned light industrial. The Comprehensive Guide Plan for the City of Eagan designates this property as light industrial. The land is not in any designated flood plain or floodway. This land is hereinafter referred to as the "site." 6. The site is approximately 13 acres in size. The south property line is approximately 50 feet, in elevation, higher than the northeast property line. The site is not a wetland and is not a water of the United States. A small, spring-fed stream 2 periodically flows through the site to a man (MnDOT) made ponding area to the north. The stream does not flow into the Minnesota River located approximately one mile to the north of the site. The property has a fair market value in excess of $991,768.00. 7. The legal description of the site is attached as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof by reference. 8. In 1971, plaintiff purchased the site and had it rezoned from A, Agricultural to I-1, Light Industrial. Plaintiff purchased the site with the intent to resell or develop the site when the Cedar Avenue Freeway was completed. The new Cedar Avenue Freeway provided access to the site and made it a prime location. From 1971 to date, plaintiff has spent thousands of dollars for taxes and assessments on the site. In September 1984, plaintiff entered into a Purchase Agreement with Cedar Space Center, Inc. for the sale of approximately one-half of the site (six acres). The buyer planned to use said land for a mini-warehouse storage facility. Any development of the land required fill material to be placed upon the existing soil. In hopes of consummating the sale, Buyer and plaintiff Seller submitted a preliminary plat for the property, which plat was approved by the City of Eagan in the fall of 1984. Seller incurred expenses for legal, engineering and planninq work in connection therewith. 9. In November 1984, plaintiff received notification from the Corps that pursuant to Title 33, United States Code, Sec- tion 1344, and implementing regulations, a"nationwide permit" was required by plaintiff before any development could take place. 3 Plaintiff submitted an application. In January 1985, defendant Corps changed, its position and required plaintiff to apply for an "individual permit." A public hearing was held by defendant Corps on May 20, 1985. On October 10, 1985, defendant Corps for- mally denied plaintiff's permit application. A copy of the Octo- ber 10, 1985 denial letter, District Engineer's Statement oP Find- ings and Final Environmental Assessment, are attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. 10. As a result of the Corps' interference, Cedar Space Center, Inc. failed to fulfill the terms of the Purchase Agreement and plaintiff was forced to cancel the agreement. 11. On January 9, 1985, the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District approved plaintiff's permit application for fill material to be placed on the land and to proceed with the project. 12. On or about January 1, 1985, plaintiff submitted its development plans to the MDNR, Division of. Water. On January 29, 1985, the MDNR found that the proposed fill would not damage a MDNR-designated trout stream and recommended that a Corps permit be issued. 13. On or about May 20, 1985, defendant MDNR notified plaintiff of the permit requirements in Minnesota Statutes Annota- ted, Section 97.488. On September 26, 1985, the MDNR offered a compromise regarding plaintiff's project whereby all state-threat- ened plant species would be allowed to be destroyed by fill on the east side of the stream on plaintiff's property if plaintiff 4 ??. 0 • deeded voluntarily approximately 3.26 acres on the west side of the stream to MDNR. In late November 1985, subsequent to the Corps' permit denial, the MDNR denied plaintiff's application for a permit to fill the entire site under biinnesota Statutes Annota- ted, Section 97.488. 14. On or about May 29, 1985, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA") waived water quality certification for this project, as required by the Clean water Act, Title 33, United States Code, Section 1341. 15. Except as stated above, the plaintiff has obtained all required local, state and/or federal approvals and permits. 16. At all times material, plaintiff has offered to defendant Corps that said agency could "take" the subject property by eminent domain, provided said defendant paid plaintiff the fair market value of the land. Defendant Corps has refused to purchase the site and/or pay fair market value therefor. 17. Plaintiff has invested and spent thousands of dol- lars for its plan to sell and develop the site and obtain all re- quired permits. 18. Defendant Corps has granted permit applications in similar circumstances. 19. On April 3, 1986 plaintiff submitted a second per- mit application for fill on the 3.25 acre portion of the total 13+ acre site; said application was submitted to complete the first permit submitted to defendant Corps, No. 85-284-23, for 9.75 5 .v , .• ? ? acres of the subject property. A copy of said second permit ap- plication is hereto attached as Exhibit "C" and incorporated here- in by reference. 20. On or about April 17, 1986 defendant Corps denied the second permit application to fill the 3.26 acre portion of the subject property, a copy of said denial is hereto attached as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by reference. COUNT I 21. Plaintiff restates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 20 above. 22. Defendant Corps in its decisions to assert juris- diction and deny the plaintiff's permit application has deprived plaintiff of all economically viable use of its land, which action constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation and due process of law, in violation of U. S. Constitution, Amendment V, and which actions damaged plaintiff in the amount of $991,768.00. COUNT II 23. Plaintiff restates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 20 above.. 24. In the alternative, defendant Corps has acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction and authority, and in an ar- bitrary, capricious and unlawful manner and has abused its discre- tion in asserting .regulatory jurisdiction and authority over plaintiff's land and development activities, and in denying the 6 ; ?.. ? • ? plaintiff's permit application, thereby causing plaintiff to not develop and/or sell the land and which actions damaged plaintiff in the amount of $991,768.00. wHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for an order and judgment of the Court: a. That the defendants have taken plaintiff's property without just compensation and due process of law; b. That the defendants shall pay damaqes and compensa- tion to plaintiff in the amount of $991,768.00 plus interest; c. In the alternative that the defendants have acted arbitrarily, capriciously and unlawfully and abused their discre- tion in asserting regulatory jurisdiction over plaintiff's land and project and in denying plaintiff's permit application, and that plaintiff is entitled to a permit to fill and develop the site; d. That the defendants shall pay the plaintiff's attor- neys' fees and costs; and e. Such other reasonable and just compensation and re- lief as the Court shall deem proper. Dated: September 170_1 1986 STALLAND & STALLAND By ? K. Peter talland Attorney for Plaintiff OCC Financial Plaza 7261 Ohms Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 (612) 835-5577 BRIGGS AND MORGAN, P.A. Thomas A. Larson, of Counsel 2200 First National Bank Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 291-1215 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAZNTIFF . LAW OFFICES / NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAI CENTER / MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 66431 ' LUTHER M. STALLAND SUITE 870 PHONE:612/835-5577 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH ° . . Merch 1, 1978 Mrs, Anna Goers ?,?c?- ?b 1$0d 0a1 Sj City of Eagan 0 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: Assessment Breakdown, Section 18, Township 27, Range 23 Dear Ann: Hi and how is everything with you? One of these days I'm going to be out that way long enough to have lunch. Ann, I am enclosing copy of letter from Dakota County with tax breakdown on above-mentioned parcel. As you will note, they state uve will have to secure information from City of Eagan as to special assessment breakdown for yeare 1976, 1977 and 1978. This is portion which State of Minnesota took for Cedar Avenue Bridge improvement. If you have ar?y question, please call. We have to submit this information to the State in order to get a refund on portion of taxes we paid on land they acquired. Thanks. Glady Roskaft Secretary to Mr. Stalland /U o /?d0 ASATIIMENTS-- Real Estate: Approved ? Beure' Co. £ee - Luther Stalland #10-01800-021-57 Eagan, City March 15, 1978 After a review of this property was made it was £ound that the State Highway Dept purchased 11.66 acres of this parcel in May of 1977 as shown in Minnesota Highway Plat #19-3. Therefore the assessed value must be reduced from 6407 to 3612 £or taxes payable in 1978. - Robert Oslund (a After a review of this pmperty was made it was #10-55300-070-04 ? determined to be incorrectly assessed. The stage Eagan, City ? of completion was done incorrectly. Therefore the 1514 McCarthy Road +?"a assessed value must be reduced from 23064 to 20900 ? far taxes payable in 1978. I ri- 7p??? ? o?( - S? :s V1 '(4 ATTACNMENT A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED PLACEMENT OF FILL MATERIAL INTiETLANDS ADJACENT TO HARNACR CREFR BEURE'-C0. (85-284-23) TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY I PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSAL II ALTERNATIVES III AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT IV ENVIRONMENTAI. CONSEQOENCES V PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LITERATURE CITED APPENDICES P AGE 1 3 5 6 15 33 34 35 SEPTEMBER 1985 SUMMARY 1. Puroose and N Beure'-Co, a Minnesota limited partnership, proposes to place fill mate- rial in wetlands adjacent to Harnack Creek in Dakota County. The purpose of the fill material is to make the site suitable, or salable, for tHe initial construction and operation of a mini-warehouse facility. The placement of fill material in wetlands adjacen[ [o Harnack Creek requires a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The applicant maintains there is a public need for the warehouse facility as indicated by the presence of a willing buyer. II. Alternatives Alternatives considered include: alteration of 9.75 acres of wetlands for a mini-warehouse storage facility; maintaining the existing wetland com- plex, with the use of an upland, or other, site for the proposed project (the no-action alternative). III. Q,ffected Environment The project aite is located in Eagan, Minnesota, within a 20-acre tract and contaios 13 acres of wetlands owned by the applicant. The wetlands of the project site are a part of a more extensive wetland complex in a metropolitan area. This wetland complex contains several areas of zare and aensitive vegetation known as calcareous fen and a State-designated trout stream, tribu- tary to the Minnesota River. A primary value of the affected wetlands arises from the diversity and interspersion of vegetation and water that provides habitat for a range of wildlife species and promotes high biological productivity. IV. EnvironmenYal Consequences Alterparive _1 - ProRosgj; The proposed project would eliminate 9.75 acres of existing wetland vegetation composed of wet meadow and shrub-carr communities. This elimination of wetland would result in the loss of 2 acres of a rare calcareous fen community throvgh the conversion of the aquatic resource to one of buildings and impervious surfaces. The loss of habitat would result in a reduc[ion in biological productivity and habitat diversity and interspersion. The completed project wouid also result in a loss of aesthetic benefits and recreational opportunities associated with the wetland complex. The proposed project would generate tax revenue for the city and provide an opportunity for the applicant to realize a profit from the operation or sale of the property. Alternative 2- The esisting wetland complea, calcareous fen communi[y, and habitai values associated with the site would be maintained. There would be no increase in the appLicant's opportuaity to profit from the operation or sale of the property. V. Pu61ic Involvement The propoaed project generated controversy during the review process including numeroue comments from the public as well as from a number of state aad federal agencies. Additional comments and sta[ements vere received during a public hearing held by the St. Paul District. 2 I. P_9RPOSE AND NEED-F4R-TNE-FROPOfzAL 1. Beure'-Co., a Minnesota limited parinership, has applied for a Department of the Army permit to authorize the placemen[ of fill material in wetlands adjacent to Harnack Creek in Dakota County, Minnesota. The project site is located in Eagan within a 20-acre tract bordered by new Cedar Avenue on the west, Chicago and Northwestern railroad tracks on the north, Nicols Road on the east and the Minnesota River bluffs on the south. The area to be filled comprises 930 acres of the applicant's 13.01-acre, all-wetland, site. Additionally, a 0.45-acre holding pond would be constructed 0o the property. The purpose of the fill material is to make the site suit- able, or salabie, for the initial construction and opera[ion of a mini-ware- house facility on the southern portion of the site. Additional buildings or aaother business would be erected oo the oorthern portio? of the site at a later time. The applicant stated that it neede a Department of the Army permit in order to eftect the sale of 6 acres of the site to a party who vould ehen construct the mini-warehouae facility. T6e applicant maintains that there is a public need for the warehouse facility as indicated by the presence of a willing buyer. The applicant later indicated that Beure' Co. may either build and operate the warehouae facility, or develop and sell the property, if the permit is isaued. Before applying for a permit, the applicant had executed a purchase agreement to sell the warehouse site. The option was not exercised, appar- ently due to the discovery of the need for a Corps permit to fill the eite. The applicant's need for the permit can be expressed as the desire of this businesa to realize, through eale or commercial development, the potential profit anticipated when the property was originally purchased. A public need for the proposal can be expreased as the need to use mini- warehouse services and the need of governments or communities for increased tax or other financial benefits, or jobs generated by additional commercial developmeot. 2. $ackyround Information The Corps became aware of the proposed development at the site on Novem- ber 27, 1984. Initial information indicated that the entire 13-acre site would be filled and that an individual Department of the Army permit would be required because filling more than 10 acres was proposed. Apparently, the developer was not aware of the Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corpa wrote the developer on November 29, 1984, stating that a Departmen[ of the Army permit mighi be required. Subsequently, as a result of correspondence and conversations with the developer, the scope of the project was reduced to filling of 9.75 acres of wetlands. Thus, on January 3, 1985, the Corps initiated review under the ?ationwide permit at 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26), covering wetlands adjacent [o the headwaters of a tcibutary to a navigable water of the United States. This nationwide permit, issued on October 5, 1984, authorizes fills which cause a substantial adverse modification of up to 1 acre of waters of the U.S., 3 requiree notification [o the Corps prior to the substantial adverse modifica- tion of 1 to 10 acres to allow for Corps review, and excludes projects that cause substantial adverse modifications to more than 10 acres of wetlands. During the Corps zeview the proposed project was identified as ineligible for the nationwide permit. It was determined that Harnack Creek is a State- designated trout stream, and is an area that ie covered by the October 1984 regional conditions to the nationwide permits for Minneaota. Activities in these areas have been excluded from nationwide permit authorization when the majority oF the fill is outside State "Protected Waters" jurisdiction and the fill area is greater than 10,000 square feet. Therefore, an individual Depart- ment of the Army permit is required prior to placing any fill material in this wetland [hat would cover more than 10,000_ square feet. The applicant then submitted an application for a permit which was ze- ceived on February 26, 1985, and a public notice was isaued for the proposed project on March 11, 1985. Numerous comments and requests for a public hear- ing were received (see Sec. A, 11-Controversy) during the 30-day comment period. On April 9, 1985, the applicant was informed ihat the Corps would hold a public hearing because of the requests received. A public notice for the public hearing was issued on April 19, 1985, and the public hearing was held on May 20, 1985, in [he Eagan City Hall, Eagan, Minaesota. The hearing transcripts are attached in the Appendix, snd comments received during the 10- day comment period are fovnd in the project file and are addresaed in the "Controversy" section of this assessment. 4 II. ALTERNATIVES This section describes the alternatives which are discussed throughou[ this environmental assessment. I. Beure'-Co., a Minnesota limited partnership, proposes to place 110,000 cubic yards of fill materiel in 9.3 acres of wetlands adjacent [o Harnack Creek in Dakota County. The purpose of the project is to prepare the wetland area to make it suitable for, or marketable as, a site for the development of one or more light industries, including a mini-warehouse storage facility (Figure 1). Following initial preparation of the ground surface, the existing__peat and muck soils would be covered by a layer__of_geotextile fabric. Next, fill of up to 3 Eeef would be placed on the fabric to form a vorking platform. To facilitate upward drainage, vertical wick drains would be placed through the fill down into the peat. Then, 4-inch diameter perforated pipe would be laid on the working platform fill, running the length of the project laterally to convey ground water to a 0.45-acre holding pond to be constructed. Additional stage fill material ranging from 3 to 5 feet deep would then be placed. Finally, 2 to 4 feet of additional fill material would be placed on top of this for surcharging. The applicant has indicated a willingness to make adjustments in this general procedure as necessary to protect water quality in Harnack Creek. 2. Under this alternative, the project site would not be filled and would remain as it is. It would proba6ly remain unsuitable for the construction of buildiogs associated with light industrial development. This alternative also includes the possibility of using an upland, or other, site elsewhere for the proposed development. 5 SCALE: 1" = 200' Figure 1. Nicols Meadow Wetl.and Complex Project SiCe r??-Gr?n-/.J ALTERNATIVE IMPACT ASSF,SSMENT MATRIX Socia7 EffectG Alternattve 1 Alternatlve 2 1. Historical/Archaeological X X 2. Noise Levels Minor short & lon -term adverse Net benefit 3. Aesthetic Values Subs[antial adverse Net beneficial 4. Recreational Opportunities Net Adverse Net beneficial 5. Transportation x x 6. Public Nealt & Safety Minor adverse X 7. Community Cohersion (Sense of Unity) Minor adverse x 8. Community Growth 6 Development Minor beneficial. Minor beneficial 9. Business S Home Reloca[ions X R 0. ExistinQ/Pntential Land Use Aeneficial and adverse Beneficial and adverse 1. Contrnversy ubs[antia] adverse 8')-284-2.5 c,.,...,,m!.. r.vv..crg Altcrnatlve 1 Altern2tive 2 1. Property Values Beneficial. and adverse Beneficial and adverse 2. Tax Revenues Minor beneficial Substantial expenitures Net beneficial 3. Public Facilities 6 Services X X 4. Re ional Growth X X 5. Em lo ment Minor beneficial Minor beneficial 6. Business Activity Minor beneFicial Minor beneficial 7. Farmland/Food Supply X Minor adverse 8. Commercial Navi ation x X 9. Flooding Effects Minor adverse R 10. Energy Needs & Resources Minor consumption Minor consumption }i')- i}ip-Z-S nlrornarivo 9 l. 2. Naturai ttesource Liteccs Air Qualit Terrestrial Habitat ?.?«<??<•???_ Tem orar minor adverse X Tem Net orar minor adverse loss 3. Wetlands SuUstantial adverse Lon -term beneficial 4 5. Rabitat Diversit 6 Inters ersion Net loss Net beneficial h. Biol.o ical Productivit Net loss Net beneficial 7. Surface Water Qualit Lon -term adverse Net beneficial 8. Water Su 1 Potentiall adverse Net beneficial 9. Groundwater Potentially adverse Net beneficial 10. Soils Minor short-term Net beneficial ll.. Threatcned or F.nd:ingered Species Adverse: SCnCe lants Ne[ beneficial . III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A. General Overview The project area is located in Eagan, Minnesota, within a 20-acre [ract bordered by new Cedar Aveoue on the west, Chicago and Northwestero raitroad tracks on the north, Nicols Road on the east and the Minnesota River Valley bluffs to the south. The project site is in the SF36, SA, of Section 18, Township 27 North, Range 23 West, Dakota County, Minnesota. The wetlands of the project site are a part of a more extensive wetland complex contained in the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWR) and Fort Snelling State Park. The project site is in close spatial proximity to the 1,300 acres of wetlands of the state park and the 3,760 acres of wetlands in the Black Dog and Lopg Meadow Lake Units of the MVNWR. These wetland areas are of epecial interest in that cney form a large continuous expanse of high quality wetlands in a metropolitan area. Additionally, thie large wetland complex contains several areas of unique and sensitive vegeta[ion, also tound in the 61ack Dog fen, Fort Snelling fen and the Nicols Meadow fen, which are both on and near the project site. Further description of this calcareous fen plant community is contained in Section C3e. 9• @.Sta3s.k..Screek Haroack Creek is a State-designated trout stream. The stream, together with its adjacent wetlands, is a tributary to the Minnesota River and is 1.0 mile in length. Slightly less than one-half (0.45) mile is Class I traut stream; it supports a naturally-reproducing population of brook trout and contains cover and forage apecies to support trout. A fishery survey conduc[- ed in 1976 also noted the presence of a naturally-reproducing brown trout population. Harnack Creek originally discharged into 81ack Dog Creek prior to the development of Black Dog Lake as a cooling water pond by Northern States Power Company. As a result of the proposed new Cedar Avenue bridges and roadways in the mid-seventies, a plan for re-routing a portion of the stream was devel- oped. A new stream channel was constructed in a northeasterly direction from the railroad tracks, along the retention pond now in place and discharging into Black Dog Creek on the east side of Old Cedar Road (Nicols Road). This segment w>s completed in 1977-78 and had a 10-foot bottom width and 4:1 sideslopes; it was seeded and mulched and supports trou[ at this time. Two-tenths of a mile of this stream is within the project area and contains numerous tributaries and feeder springs, eigh[een of which have been identified (Figure 2). The average water temperature at the source of this segment is 39° F in winter and 51° F in summer (MDNR Fisheries 1976, 1980). Average flow of the stream is 400 gallons per ainute on a gzadient of 40 feet per mile. Water temperature steadily increasing downstream of the railroad tracks contributes to maintaining a lower water temperature unsuitable for trout. 6 9 Springs 'oe SCALE: 1" = 200' Fi.qure 2. Nicols Meadow Wetland Complex - Stream and Springs Fish species found in Harnack Creek are the following: Fathead minnow (giMQ,phales nroULElas), creek chub ($gUL4t,ilus 3.LLpm3Sulatus), blacknose dace I (Rhinichthvs atratulus), brook stickleback (Culag$ ipSoas.tans), central ly?? mudminnow (Q@bra I,y.T;L), and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalisl. The 1981 removal of two 6eaver dams by blasting resulted in a surge of high water in T the downstream section and destroyed most undercut banks and silted-in pools in this section. Trout 6abitat was much reduced from the 1980 survey, but a beaver dam now located just west of Nicols Road is providing a pool 150 feet in length. An electrofishing eurvey conducted July 19, 1985, indicated the presence of brook trout, northern pike and fathead minnows. (Bruce Gilbertson, MN DNR Fisheries, personal communication). The upper reach of Harnack Creek has an average width of 3.5 feet, a 1.0 foot average depth, and contains 10 percent pools and 90 percent rifflee and rapids. Bottom types consist of 10 percent silt and muck, 20 percent sand, and 70 percent gravel. This reach of the atream contains aquatic vegetatioo primarily of watercress (Nasturtium officinale), jewelweed (Lmpgtiens ?,gpensy,g), sedges, cattail (Tyg(ug spp.), duckweed (I&m¢3 ull.p_4L) in slack i areas, and filamentous algae. Watercress is extremely abundant in the upper ?i 250 feet of the stream and its tributary feeder springs. The upper reach of II the stream is within adjaceot wetlands which result from the continuous groundwater discharges on the site aad form a part of a larger expanse of high ' quality wetlands of the lower Mionesota River Valley. C. Project Site Flora and Fauna ]) General OvervieyL The project site is comprised of approximately 13 acres of wetland within a 20-acre tract between the new and old Cedar Avenues. The majority of the project area contains herbaceous vegetation associated with wet meadow (Type II) and acrub-shrub (Type VI) wetlands (Shaw and Fredine 1956). Five major habitat types, classified by vegetation, exist within the project site. (See Section 3 - Vegetation Communities.) The following methods were used to determine whether the project site contained wetlands; on-site field surveys, color infra-red serial photography, low-level aerial photography, previous vegetation surveys, and the Dakota County soil survey. The Corps definition of wetlands was used; wetlands are those areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do suppor[, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for saturated soil conditions. A multi-parameter approach in making the wetland determination was used. The vegetation, soils and hydrelogy in the project area were identified, with vegetatio? being the most important parameter, in that the plant community reflects the soils and hydrology of the site. The Dakota County Soil Survey (USDA, 1983) was used to iden[ify general areas of soil types, along with previous boring records and field inspection at the project site. 5oils described in [he soil survey as peat or muck soils 7 and/or very poorly or poorly drained correspond closely with wetlands under the Corps definition, unless ihose areas have been filled or artificially drained. The soil types found at the project site are further described in the project site description tor soils (see Section D. 1, and Figure 3). The hydrology of the project area was identified by observations in the field and by examination of U.S.G.S. topographic maps and aerial photographs. This study focused on the saturated soils, groundwater discharge (springs) points, headwater streams, etc., of t6e project site. The vegetation and plant communities were determined using on-site field surveys, previous vegetation surveys, and low-level and color infra-red aerial ghotography of the project site. The U.S. Fieh and Wildlife Service's "Anno- tated Wetland Plant Species Data Base" and the Draft "National Wetland Inventory Wetland Plant Species List - Region 3, North Central" were consulted to determine whethec a particular speciea is found in wetlands. Gleason and Cronquist (1963) and Fernald (1970) vere uaed for identification and scienti- fic names. Plant community descriptions follow Curtis (1959). It was detetmined.by the above described criteria that the project site contains wetlands as defined by the Corps in 33 CFR 323.2(c). This determina- tion is further discussed under vegetation community and wildlife habitat descriptions. 2) Sackgtound Information This particular project site has a somewhat long and varied history that pertains to both the general area and the individual parcel. Nistocically, the Callan family owned the surrounding lands containing the tract of concero in this permit, beginning in 1867 and continuing for 78 years until 1945 when the parcel was acquired by Walter White. The Nicols Meadow area, formerly known as Nicols Station, and the lands from what is now Fort Snelling State Park to Savage, were widely used as pasture, hayland and some low-land farming areas early in the 20th century. This area consisted of a vast expanse of virtually treeless meadow on wet, peaty soils and in 1940 contained a single road crossing noc known as hicols Road. Mr. White worked the land on the project site from 1940 until 1957 when he sold the land. The area was pastured and hayed prior to Mr. White's working the site. Mr. White began to work the land as a hobby farm and plowed an initial area paralleling the railroad tracks. With the use of a special caterpillar and a breaker plow, he was able to work approximately 8 acres in the mid-40's, and a smaller acreage later on, and raised cabbage, swee[ corn, buckwheat, and some soybeans. (Walter White, personal com munication). Following Mr. White's sale of the land to anotheT pacty, a small garden plot was farmed for several years, after which the site was not worked from 1959 until the present time. A portion of the project site wae acquired for the new Cedar Avenue right-of-way in 1977. This resulted in part of the area known as the Nicols Meadow fen on tfie western portion of the project site being covered with fill, 8 5oa° HAWICK " TERRIL LOAM , 4- I 2% PROPERT ??Y \ ? - ?--LINE ? \ ? ? ? ? ? SEELYEVILLE MUCK , sloping 1 1 ' i 7_ _ SEELYEVILLE MUCK SCALE: 1" = 200' . ? ? Fiy;ure 3. Nicols Mcadow Wetland Complex Soils leaving about 3 acres of fen remaining. In 1940, the fen covered approximate- ly 10 acres and [hrough the years has decreased in size until, ahen the si[e was visited in December 1984, it appeared that less than 2 acres of actual fen remained. During subsequent site visits in May and lune 1985 to refine a descrip- tion of vegetation communities, a remnant portion of calcareous fen wae Located on the east portion of the project site. At the present time, the calcareous fen community comprises 2.28 acres on the project site, of the 3.05 acres of fen in the total project area. 3. Ve2etation Communities The predominant vegeta[ion of each of the vegetation communities of the project site is discussed in the following sections. The eatent of the com- munities and their location are ahown in Figure 4 and a plant list of the project site is contained in Appendix A. a. Wet Meadow (Type II vetland (Shaw and Fredine 1956)) Wet meadows are open, treeless plant communities of saturated soils where more than SO percent dominance is by grasses (e.g., reed canary graes (Phalaria arundinace?), blue-joint grass (Calama¢roatis canadensis) and forbs other than sedges. The soil is eiiher a raw peat or a muck produced by decomposition of such peat, and water is always plentiful and never a limiting factor by ita lack (Curtis 1959). The grass family.(Poaceae) and aster family (Asteraceae) are usually well represented in wet meadows. The wet meadow of the project site is dominated by reed canary grass, giant cane (Phragmites aus[ralus), purple meadow rue (Thalictrum dasycaroum goldenrods (Solidaeo spp.) and asters (Aster app.). Reed canary grass forms an extensive monotype in much of the vet meadow, with several areas being subdominated by PhraYmitea and meadow rue. Reed canary grass is considered to be a disturbance indicator and along with giant cane and meadow rue, tend to indicate the previous agricultural activity as the disturbance factor (Welby Smith, personal communication). Wet meadow comprises 9.29 acres (71 percen[) of the 13-acre project site and 10.9 acres (70 percen[) of the 20-acre project area. b. Emergent (Type III Wetland) The emergent plant community on the project site comprises 0.04-acre (3 percent) and is a part of the inland shallow fresh marsh which is adjacent to the Cedar Avenue fill embankment. The soil is waterlogged during the growing season and can be covered vith up to 6 inches of wa[er. The dominant vegeta- tion in this community is primarily common cattail (TYpha latifolia) along with sof[stem bulrush (Scirpus validus), common duckweed and various aedges. 9 VEGETATION COMMUNITY CALCAREOUS FEN WET MEADOW -.SHRUB-CARR LOWLAND HARDW00D UPLAND HARDWOOD ......... EMERGENT SCALE: I" = 200' Figure 4. Nicols Meadow Wetland Complex Vegetation Communities c. Shrub-Carr (.Type VI Wetland) _The dominant vegetation of the shrub-carr is red osier dogwood (Corg,ug stolon3fera) and willow (Salix spp.) shrubs; the soil is usually saturated during [he growing season and can contain up to 6 inches of water on the surface. The understory consists of jewelweed, stinging nettle (Ortica dioica) and some sedges (Carex spp.). The shrub-carr community is scattered throughout the project site, and in many instances the emall yellow ladyslip- per (Cyprip di mcalceolus var. narviflorum) and small white ladyslipper (fe, candidum) were found at the edge of t6e ahrub-carr and wet meadomjcalcareous fen types. In comparing aerial photographs of the area fram 1940 to 1985, the pro- ject site has undezgone a change from a virtually treeleas meadow to an invasion by woody vegetation. It is surmised that vith the removal of haying, suppression of fire and elimination of previous agricultural activity, the establishment of aoody vegetation has occurred. Tbe shrub-carr community comprises 1.4 acres of the project site, with 1.3 acres additional not on the project site. d. Lowland Hardwood Forest (Type VII Wetland) The lowland hardvood community compriaes 2.8 acres of the project area, with none of this community on the immediate project site. The peaty soil is saturated to within a few inches of its surface during the growing season. The dominant species in this community are Black willow ($a11X nira), Quaking aspen (Populua tremuloides) and Alder bucktNorn (Rhamnus alnifolia). The understory is very sparse, but contains some stinging nettle, sedges and a variety of mosses. e. Calcareous Fen (Type II We[land) The calcareous fen plant community, although classed as a Type II wet- land, is a rare wetland plant community which con[ains a number of unique and sensitive plant species. The term, calcareous fen, follows the narrow defini- tion of Curtis (1959). Calcareous fens are a plant community on a wet and springy site, with an internal flow of water rich in calcium and magnesium bicarbonates and some- times calcium and magnesium sulfates as well. Calcareous fens have extremely high pH (7.0 to 8.2) and high mineral content, maintained solely by ground- water and contain certain calciphilic plants as community indicators. Calcareous fens apparently only develop where discharges of groundwater rich in calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate occur. This groundwater is typically discharged from dolomitic bedrock and/or calcareous glacial deposits. Many calcareous fens are noticea6ly raised in the middle, exhibiting a convex profile. Conditions associated with calcareous peat soils - low oxygen availability and cold temperatures - determine the characteristic floristic composition and structure of the calcareous fen community. 10 Minnesota calcareous fens, in general, have a distinct north-facing aspect, which can be seen in the lower Minnesota River Valley, where all four calcareous fens (Savage, Black Dog, Fort Snelling and Nicols Meadov) are north facing. (Welby Smith, personal communication). Their location at the base of a north-facing slope permits less solar radiation, resulting in a cooler, wetter habitat which simulates more nor[hezn conditions. This plant community ie characteriaed by calciphilic plant species or calcicoles (Table 1). Associated vith the calcicoles are plant species of different florietic associations, including species from the prairies, acid bogs, and saline wetlands. Minnesota calcareous fens may be dominated by herbaceous plants (sedges, grasses, and forbe) or 6y certain woody shrubs. Minnesota's calcareous fens also include a diaproportionately high numbez of rare plant species (Table 2). The vetland plant communities of the project site are a part of what has been knovn as the Nicols Meadov fen since the early 1970's. A portion of the Ricols Meadow fen was filled during the building of the new Cedar Avenue bridge and today the fen comprises 3.05 acres on both the project site and adjacent MDOT right-of-way land. For the purpose of this assessment, the calcareous fens are referred to as the east and vest fen. The west fen has been affected by the Cedar Avenue construction and the east fen is a remnant portion notably recovering from previous agricultural disturbance. Calciphilic species found in both of the fens are shovn in Table 1, marked vith an as[erisk. The west fen is a grade A fen comprised of two aegments containing 1.03 acres with 14 calciphilic species found in it. The east fen compriaes 2.02 acrea of grade B fen with 7 calciphilic species. The Nicols Meadow fens contain 6 species of plants identified as either threatened or of special concern status as listed by the State of Minnesota.(MN. Stats. Sec. 97.488). Hodal species, as defined by Curtis (1959), found in the Nicols Meadow fen community are as follows: Svamp milkweed Rush aster Aster Lowland white aster Bluejoint gzass Marsh marigold Tall bellflover Small whi[e ladyslipper Common boneset Northern bedstraw Fowl mannagrass Rush Ralm's lobelia Blue lobelia Water horehound Narrow-leaved loosestrife Grass-of-Parnassus AscleBias incarnata Aster iunciformus Aeter lucidulus Aster s1IDDlex Calama2rostis canadensis Caltha palustris Camnanula aparinoides f,?pripedrium candidum Eupatoruim ,perfoliatum Galium boreale Glviceria striata Juncus dudlvei Lobelia kalmii Lobelia @yphilitica ?.iCODUS americanus Lysimachia auadriflora Parnassia Elauca 11 Swamp lousewort pgdicularis_ lanceolata Riddell's goldenrod Solidaeo rid,4gl ii Purple meadow rue Th8lictrum dasvcarnum Valerian Va riana Pd?ylis_ var. ciliata Threatened or of special concern plant speciee found during various surveys conducted since December at the site aere: Sterile sedge (Carex aterilis), Velerian (Valeriana edulis var. cy],i3t3), and Small white ladyslip- per (Cyprinedium candidu m). Other notable species observed were cowbone (Oxy+nolis *?icti, diar) and the small yellow ladyslipper (QIVr'n,rdyL;Lm calciolus var. y_&rviflarum). Although not officially listed, cowbane is considered a rare species in Minnesota. The two calcareous fens of the Nicols Meadow site were found to contain 108 of the 155 total plant species observed within the site, indicating a high species diversity within this hybrid plant community. 4. Wildlife Aabita[ The Type II wet meadow and Type VI shrub-scru6 wetlands of the project site, with their com6ination of plant and water regime, support a great diver- sity of flora and fauna and provide high quality wildlife habitat. This acreage of undeveloped land composed of an interspersion of habitats, contains a diversity of wildlife and is located in proximity to other wildlife habitat. The area is valuable [o waterfowl as reproductive and feeding sites, as noted by the presence of two mallard (&gg ^latvrhvnchos) and one blue-winged teal (@qSS 4i3s4LS? aest located on the site during vegetation enrveys. Wildlife apecies observed included common yellovthroat (Geothlvnis trichag.), sedge wren (Cistothorus Rlateosis), song sparrow (Nelosniza melodia), swamp sparrow (Lfelosviza eeoreiana), ring-necked pheasant (Phasiangg co hi +), white- tailed deer (Odecoileus vireinianus) and beaver (Castor raeadensis). Appendix B containa a list of all wildlife species observed at the project site during surveys conducted. Additionally, examples of species not observed but for which suitable habitat is available include: raccoon (F_Locyon 1QLD.r)> mink (tiustela vison striped skunk (Mephitis meyhitis), various small mammals (mice and ahrews), and American woodcock (Philohela m,inor). The 8e11's vireo (VirpQ be.111i? and yellow-breasted chat (atgti3 virens) have been recorded in the vicinity of the project site (Minnesota River Valley Audubon Club, personal communication). Numerous leopard frogs (Rana Qinens) were also observed at the project site. With the abundance of high quality wetlands at the project site, not only sporting species benefit, but also many non-harvested wetland species as well. Warner (1979) provides a more complete listing of the Fildlife of the Minnesota River Valley. D. ]. Soilg The soils of the project area are shown in Figure 3. The major soil types used on Figure 3 are lis[ed below for the project area. (5ource: Dako[a County Soil Survey, USDA 1983): 12 TABLE ] Calciphilic Species Found In Minnesota Calcareovs Fens Sc=mQa._&m€ Rush aster Valerian Bog birch Shru6by cinquefoil Ralm's loCelia Grass of Parnassus Riddell's Goldenrod Arrowgrass Lesser fringed gentian Small bladdervort Yellow twayblade Swamp Lousewort S[erile sedge Prairie sedge Marsh muhly grass Narrow leaved loosestrife Twig-rush Fen beak-rush Nut-rush Piok gerardia Scienr_if? ? * Valeriana @,dILLLg vat. C_ilygt3 * &eSSt13 Rumila Potentilla fruticosa * Is4.bE.11.3 k31m1.1 * Parnassia glgytca * Solidaeo riddellii * Trielochib marit,imum Gentiana n,r.ocera Dtricularia intermedia Lioaris ln.es€Lii * Pedicularis lanceolata * Carex sterilis * Carex nrairea * Muhlenber¢ia plomerata * Lysimachia q.ugd i lora Cladivm mariscoides . *+ Ryhnchospora c,gyillacea *+ $cleria verticillaLg ggrerdia pauRp,=cula * Found in the Nicola Meadow fens + Fouod pre-1.980 TABLE 2 Rare Plant Species Found in Minnesota Calcareous Fena Careg sterilis Clad,yy?m mar3soides Scleria verticillata Rhynchospora cgpillacea Valeriana p,dyljg v. ciliats Tofieldia Qlutinosa Eleocheris rostellata Tri¢lochio nalustris CT,r.ipedium candidum Sterile sedge Twig-rush Nut-rush Fen beak-rush Valerian False asphodel Beeked spike rvsh Arrowgrass White ladyslipper State threatenedi State special concernZ Sta[e threateued State threatened State threatened State special concern State threatened State apecial concern State special concern ' Species listed ae threatened by the State are epecies that may become endangered if their populations are significantly reduced. Species assigned to this category might be characterized by: (]) Populations that have always been small and any declioe in their numbere would e eignificant and/or, (2) Populations that dave already undergone an apparent decline and for which any further decline would be detrimental. 2 Speciea listed as of apecial concern by the State are species that are not listed as threateoed or endangered but do require apecial attention. Included are: (1) "Species subjected to species-specific exploitation, and, (2) Species whose habitats aod 6abits lend them to being particularly vulnerable to disturbance. Source: Mionesota Natural Heritage Program a. Seelyville muck, sloping This eoil is gently sloping to steep, very poorly drained, at the base of eacarpmente along the Minnesota River valley. Permeability is moderately rapid and organic matter content is very high. b. Seelyville muck Thia nearly level, very poorly drained soil is in broad areas along ihe Minnesota River floodplain. It consists of muck and peat and permeabili- ty is moderately rapid. Depth to the seasonal high vater [able is less thaa 2 feet, with organic matter content being very high. c. Harwick loamy sand, 25 to SO$ This very ateep, excessively drained soil is on sideslopes on outaash plains and in stream valleys. Permeability ia rapid to very rapid vith organic matter content being moderately low. d. Terril Loam, 4 to 12X This gently sloping and sloping, modera[ely well drained eoil is on plane and concave upland fast slopes. Permeability is moderate and organic matter content is high. The entire 13.01-acre project site is composed of the deep peat soils of the Seelyville muck typee (2 SH, sloping - 10.54 ac. and SM - 2.47 ac.). The wetland boundary of the 20-acre projeci area very closely correlates with these soils described as very poorly drained. A majority of the Terril loam also supports wetland vegetation and is a result of material deposited by gravity and water. It is on the Seelyville mucks that the calcareous fen plani communities are located on this site. 2. Hydroloev The project area lies at the base of a large terrace on the south side of the Minnesota River Valiey. This reach of the valley is a prominent ground- water discharge area. Discharge is particularly intense along the edge of the valley where vater, collected in thick glacial sediments to the south, dis- charges from a thin cover of overburden and fractured bedrock of the Prairie du Chien Formation. Discharge in the wetland occurs at the ground surface from scattered point saurces and is typical of other areas along the valley wall where bedrock lies at fairly ehallow depth. This discharge has, over the years, sustained vetlands which in turn have built up thick deposits of organ- ic material (peat). The water, rich in carbonate from contact with calcareous glacial sediments and bedrock, is favorable for the growth of calcareous fens. Harnack Creek originates at the base of the terrace. Several vigorous aprings at that location discharge through small individual etreams.to form a well defined channel that trends northward across the northward sloping wet- land. The channel lies 10 to 15 feet below most of the wetland and has a total drop of more than 30 feet between its origin at the base of the terrace 13 and the north side of the project. Small tributary channels vhich head less than 200 feet from the creek carry ground-vater discharge from the wetland to ihe creek. In addition, occasional areas of ground-water discharge occur as wet spots that do not form a correlative pattern aad do not diachazge to the creek. Figure 2 shows the location of 8arnack Creek and the most prominent springs of the project area. 14 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section discusses the specific impacts of the two alternatives (see Section II) considered. These alternatives are: Alternative 1- t6e proposed filling of vetlanda for a mini-warehouse storage facility and other develop- meni; Alternative 2- the no action (i.e., denial of the permit) alternative, which also addresses the use of an upland site. A. Social Effecte 1. Aistorical/Archaeolovical Valuea a. Alternative 1- As required by our regulations, a pu6lic notice of this application has been sent to the National Park Service, the State Archae- ologist, and the State Historie Preservation Officer to determine if there are any known cultural resources vhich may be affected by the deacriDed vork. The latest version of the National Regiater of Historic Places has been consulted aad no properties lieted on or eligible for incluaion on the Register are located in the project area. Aowever, unknown archaeological, ecientific, or historical data may be lost or destroyed by the work described under this alternative. b. Alternative 2- The impacta of thia alternative vould be similar to Alternative 1 if the work described was coaducted at an upland location. There would be no po[ential to affect cultural reaources if the proposal was simply abandoned. 2. Noise Levels a. Alternative 1- Because of ite metropolitan location, the project area ie exposed to noise genersted by traffic, primarily by vehicles using the adjacent Cedar Avenue route to [ravel to Bloomington or Minneapolis and to Eagan or Burnsville. Traffic noise is heaviest during the daily normal rush hour traffic. Minor vehicular noise is produced along Nicols Road from area residents, people traveling on this road to the MVNWR lands, the Minneaota River boat ramp, or to the norih and west to the Black Dog power plant. Traffic on Nicole Road is substantially less than that on Cedar Avenue. The project site adjacency to the large eapanse of undeveloped land to the east and west ia a factor vhich tende to moderate these noise levels. The use of heavy equipment during construction would result in a aubstan- tial increase in noise levels within the wetland complex. GYading, bulldozing and fill placement by heavy equipment could 6e expected to produce sound preasure levela of at least 70 dBA or greater. This increase in noiae levels vould be ehort-term and would only be associated with ihe construction phase of the project. Once the storage facility was completed, the operation of the facility would result in a minor, long-term increase in noise levels. Secondly, in the future, if an additional light industrial activity were constructed and operated on the remainder of the eite, many of the above discussed noise levels would occur again. 15 b. Alternative 2- Under this al[ernative, the vehicular noise asso- ciated with Cedar Avenue and Nicols Road would still occur as it ia at pre- sent. The increase in noise levels due to construction and operation of the mini-warehouse facility or another light industry would not occur at this site. If the proposed project was to be constructed at an alternative upland aite, many of the traffic, construction and operation noise levels would then occur at [hat site, at a presently unknown location. 3. Aesthativ Val a. Alternative 1- The project construction and any future additional light industrial use would result in a aubstan[ial degradation of the project area's scenic appearance. Many people believe that unaltered natural areas, including wetlands, are valuable in and of themselves, regardless of any tangible benefits or ecological functions society may receive from them. Numerous comments received during the public notice and pu6lic hearing comment periods expressed this view and etated that the project area providea an important aesthetic amenity in an urbanizing area (see Controverey Summary). The project site ie part of the lower Minnesota River floodplain area which is becoming increasingly attractive to industrial, commercial and resi- dential development which requires the filling of vetlands. The wetlanda most sueceptible to thia type of destruction are the ehallow types II and IZI wetlanda similar to those found on the project site. The filling of thie wetland would result in the loss of aesthetic values aesociated wit6 the inherent presence of the wetland, the bird watching and wildlife o6servation opportunities, loss of botanical study opportunities and observations asso- ciated wit6 the unique plant community on the eite (refer to Affected Environ- ment) and the open-space viewing enjoyed by passing motorists from both Cedar Avenue and Nicols Road. The presence of mini-warehouse buildings and the road and parking sur- faces associated with them as well as the presence of heavy equipment during conatruction, would probably be perceived by most individuals as being less aesthetically pleasing than a natural wetland complex. Adjacent residential landowner views would be obstructed in comparison to the existing views available. Motorists on Cedar Avenue would also have this view of the project in place of the existing wetland complex. b. Alternative 2- Under this alternative the project site would not have the aesthetic values impacted as discussed under Alternative 1, but the values associated with a natural wetland complex would be maintained. If the project was built on an upland site, there would also be aesthetic impacts associated with the way an upland site is perceived, and these would probably consis[ of some of the effects previously discussed. 4. Recreational Opps rtunities a. Alternative 1- The proposed project would impact recreational oppor- tunities now associated with the existing project site. These include wild- life observation, bizd watching, botanical and natural history studies, biking or walking. The proposed State Trail, which would connect MVNWR land and Fort 16 Snelling S[ate Park land, would pass under Cedar Avenue along the railroad tracks and connect to old Cedar (Nicols Road) on the east (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982). Trail use would include such activities as bicycling, hiking, and skiing. Future use for these [ypes of activities may be affected 6y placement of light industry on the site. Additionally, because of the situation of the remaining portion of wetland and fen being located between a major highway and a warehouse facility, it is probable that no private or public body would attempt the considerable cost of trying to preserve and manage the site if the project was constructed as propoeed. b. Alternative 2- Recreational opportuni[ies vould continue to be available and the area would continue to provide those functions in the future. Some public, quasi-public or private agency might be interested in acquiring and preserving the site as a aatural, scientific or educaiional area or for some pubiic use in the site's natural condition. 5. Transrortation a. Alternatives 1 and 2- Neither alternative would have an appreciable effect on transportation, either at tbe proposed site or any other site. 6. Public Health and Safe?iy a. Alternative 1- This alternative would result in a minor adverse impact on public safety due to an increase in traffic in the area. Primary access to the project is through a residential neighborhood via Silver Bell Road and could reault in a higher potential for children in the area being expoaed to accidents from vehicles. b. Alternative 2- The no action alternative would result in no appre- ciable effect on public eafety as a result of an increase in traffic and a su6sequent higher incidence for accidents. If the project was built at another site, an increase in traffic could be eapected with a possible in- crease in accident potentials at that unknown site. 7. Cmmunity Cohesion a. Alternative 1- The proposed project is strongly opposed to by most local residenta. Numerous letters and petiYions were received during the public comment periods. Several State agencies also opposed or were concerned about the project. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency waived certifica- tion for water quality with conditions, but recommended that the project as a whole be denied. The Metropolitan Council stated tha[ Harnack Creek vas a trout s[ream and that ihe Nicols Meadow fen could be damaged and asked that [he permit not be issued. The h:innesota Department of Natural Resources cited several concerns about the project. Two Federal agencies recommended denial of the permit in comment letters received. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requested denial because of unanswered questions to environmental concerns. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (ECOlogical Services and Refuges) recommended that the permit be denied. The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District has issued a permit for 17 the project, based primarily on the fact that an extremely small portion of the site is within the floodplain. The City of Eagan has given preliminary plat approval to the project. One adjacent landowner expressed support for the project. The numerous comments received on the project are summarized in the "Controversy" section. The comment lettere are contained in the permit file. b. A t rna 'v 2- It is expected that the probable reaction to this alternative by the local residents and the majority of the agencies involved would be overwhelmingly favorable, based on the comments received. It is expected that if [he project were to be built on an upland site with lesser environmental consequences, that reaction would probably be favorable, al- though there would possibly be some objections espressed by residents near the alternate site. 8. CQM a. Alternative 1- The proposal would have a minor beneficial effect by contributing a business or two in Eagan. This is considered minor in compari- son to the 240 or so businesses already located in the community. The pro- ject's effect on the wetland complex would be a detriment to the community's environmental quality which can also affect growth and development. Increased tax revenues and 3 additional jobs would tend to encourage growth and develop- ment. b. Alternative 2- The open space, wildlife observation and other aesthetic benefita provided by [he vetland complex would remain an aseet to Eagan's environmental quality under this alternative. Opland environmental values could be lost if the proposal were built on uplands. An upland project vould eimilarily encourage growth and development. 9. Business and Home Relocations a. Alternative 1 and 2- The project would have no direct impacts on businese or home relocations. Secondary effecta could cause some residents to wish to sell their properties if the project was built adjacent to them under either alterna[ive, including an upland site. Thie might occur in areas where light industrial zoned parcels are adjacent to residen[ially zoned areas. 10. Existiny/Potential Land Use a. Alterna[ive 1- In its existing state, the project site possesses the following; 1) A rare and aensitive natural resource composed of a wetland complex containing a trout stream and calcareous fen. Refer to [he "Affected Environment" section. 2) Wetland wildlife habitat which supports a variety of indigenous wildlife species year round. Refer to the "Affec[ed Environment" sec[ion III 4. 18 3) Important water quality func[ions through the assimilation of nutrients and the filtexing of runoff by the wetland vegetation. Refer to the "Environmental Consequences" section C7. 4) Present light industrial zoning status. 5) Recreational opportunities that include wildlife and flora obser- vation aod hiking. 6) Aesthetic benefits in the form of open space, oature observation, and environmental educatioo. If the project is completed as proposed, the following would result; 1) The discharge of ]]0,000 cubic yards of fill material into the vetland complex. 2) The permanent loss or alteration of a minimum of 9.75 acres of wetlands as a resnlt of fill placement and construction. 3) The permanent loss of a unique calcareous fen plaot community of 2 acres, impacting two State-threatened plants. Refer [o C3. and C.11. of the "Environmental Coosequences" section. 4) An expenditure of $82,000 to $737,000 for fill placement, not including tranaportation, as stated by the applicant. Refer to B.l.of the "Environmental Consequences" section. 5) An enhanced opportunity for the applicant to realize a profit from the operation or sale of the property. Refer to B.I. of the "Environ- mental Consequences" section. 6) The conversion of the existing aquatic natural resource to an area of buildiogs and impervious surfaces. 7) A net loss in biological productivity and habitat diversitylin- spersion. Refer to C.S. and C.6. of the "Environmental Consequences" section. 8) A net loss of the aesthetic benefits as under Alternative 1, existing state, and A3. 9) An adverse impact on water quality resulting from the loss of wetlands and their associated water quality functions provided by this veget>- tion. Refer to C.3. and C.7, of ihe "Environmental Consequences" section. 101 A loss of recreational opportuni[ies as discussed in A.4. of the "Environmental Consequences" section. 11) Genera[ion of tax revenue for the community of Eagan. Refer to B.2. of the "Environmental Consequences" sec[ion. b. A1teLnatiy.p 2- This alternative has the potential for the following: 19 1 1) Retention of the wetland complex and its values as described under Aliernative 1 and in subsequent sections. 2)-'Retention of the calcareous fen plant community and State- threatened plant species. 3) A failure to realize maximum profi[ from [he investment in the property by the applicant. Refer to B.I. of the "Environmental Consequences" section. 4) Generation of tax revenue for the community and business activity if built at an alternative site. 5) No increase in the applicant's opportunity to profit from the operation of a bueiness on, or sale, of the property. Refer to B.1. of the "Environmental Consequencea" section. 11. Controveray - Sum Mfi= a. Prior to Arplication Numerous comments were received during the period the Corps was determi- ning the appropriate regulatory procedure to apply to the proposal: 1. Senator Durenberger's fi Congressman Frenzel's offices recom- mended that the na[ionwide permit should authorize the project. 2. Citizens stated that the site is an important wetland and con- tains a calcareous fen. 3. Others wrote that the project would merely benefit the applicant and be for his own financial gain. 4. MPCA cited potentially significant environmental impacta of both individual and cumulative significance. 5. EPA noted adverse effects of filling and construction on aurface and groundwater suppliea of the fen 6 trout stream, including: - Impacts on faunal 5 floral habitat. - Effects of surcharging on soil 6 water movement and soil structure in adjoining undeveloped areas. 6. DRF -(Div. Waters) suggested that [he NWP permit apply with a condition of requiring a 6olding pond to divert wa[er away from the stream. DNR -(Div. Wildlife) recommended an individual permit process becanse of unknown effects on adjacent fen and wetlands hydrology. 7. FWS recommended that the individual permit process apply because the project would cause more than minimal adverse ispacts. 20 b. Public Notice Comments MYCA comments in response to the Public No[ice were: 1. Final plan approval by MPCA must become a condi[ion of any permi[ that may 6e issued. 2. It is essential that the quaZity and quantity of ground water entering Harnack Creek be maintained. 3. The placement of wick drains is not encouraged since the ver- tical drainage of water is not desirable. 4. Surface water drainage must be conducted to a holding pond and subsequently diverted away from Aarnack Creek. 5. MPCA approval of eroeion control measures must be e condition of any permits which may be granted. 6. The project does not eeem to be vater dependent and there appear to be feasible and prudent alternatives to placing this project in a wetland. The U.S. EPA reiterated t6eir comments of 25 January, citing: 1. Effects of project activities on euzface and eubsurface water 'supplies for the fen and trout stream. 2. Impacts expected on existing faunal and floral habitat values including State threatened plant species. 3. The effects oF surcharging on soil and water movement and soil structure in the adjoining undeveloped area. 4. The impacts of this degree of human development on the future management opportunities for t6e fen and trout stream as acientific and nat- ural areas. 5. That information concerning the a6ove had not been received, and therefore EPA requested denial of the permit in its entirety. The USFk'S (Refuge) objected to the building of storage facilities at the site because: 1. Development would permanently destroy the plant community on the site and possibly disturb the groundwater aystem in t6e area, which could very likely have adverse effects on the surrounding wetland complex. 2. The building aite in its present state as a vet meadow provides for a variety of wildlife and is a part of a more extensive wetland complex. 21 3. Escalating urban development within the Minnesota River flood- plain would be costly both aesthetically and financially to residenta of the metropolitan area. The USFWS.($cological Services) recommended that a permit for the project not be issued b'ecause: 1. The placement of fill material into a wetland for mini-ware- houses is not a water-dependent activity, and less-damaging upland alterna- tives are presumed to exist. 2. The temporarily flooded emergen[ and scrub-shrub vetland types in t6e project site provide food, ahelter, and habitat for a variety of wildlife. The proposed filling of the wetland would zeduce the value of the neighboring riparian habitats. 3. The immediate proaimity af tbe proposed project to other wet- lands may adversely affect these neighboring wetlands by induting changes in surface and groundwater flow patterns. 4. The stormwater retention pond proposed to be constructed vill not replace habitat resources that would be lost. The State Hiatoric Preservation Officer's review showed no finding of known sites of historic, architectural, cultural, archaeological, or engineering significance wit6in the area of the proposed project. The Minnesota Department of Natural ftesources stated that: l. The proposed project would result in the direct loss of 9.30 acres of vetland and the placement of fill would probably have an indirect and unforeseen effec[ on the remaining portion of the wetland, most notably on the calcareous fen plant community. 2.' The change would likely result in an increased or decreased flow in the remainder of the fen/wetland complex which could result in either local flooding or drying. 3. The fen plant community and the two threatened plant species are dependent on a continuous, non-interrupted flow of groundwater, and the pro- ject as proposed would cause a eignificant degradation or eventual destruc[ion of this fen habitat and the dependent threatened species. The Metropolitan Council re-evaluated a former poaition based on the fact that Harnack Creek is a trout stream and tha[ the project could impact Nicols Meadow fen. It recommended that a permit not be issued becauae of potential impac[s to t6ese resources. 22 Individuale commenting in 21 letters containing 240 signatures objected to the proposal, citing: The physical impact of filling 9•3 acres of wetland. oalues provided to public vould be destroyed by peraonal interest. Impacts on the adjacent calcareoue fen S threatened species. Impacts of filling on the adjacent trout stream (through changes in hydrology). Impacts of additional traffic on Nicols Road and a state bike trail. The aesthetically beautiful area should be kept in its natural etate. The wetlanda provide year-around homes for a variety of wildlife that would be dieplaced. A valuable natural heritage in conjunction wit6 the refuge and metro area. Indiscriminate draining & filling of wetlands. The project would set a precedent for building on this type of area. This type of project could definitely be built elsewhere in an area where it vould be less damaging to the environment. The project would be for the financial gain of the applicant at the expense of residenta. Mini-storage buildings in a wetland area are not unique and add nothing to the quality of life. Camments included numerous requeats for a public hearing, ahich was subsequently held. c. Peb1;r Hearinc Comments A public hearing request on the proposal was granted on April 9, 1985, and held on May 20th, 1985. The hearing was held in the Eagan City Hall. Comments were as followsc Mr. Peter Stalland, representing the applicant, presented a discussion of the application and the legal issues involved which is summarized as follows: 1. Beure'-Co. purchased this parcel around 1 970 and it has been zoned light industrial since 1960. 23 2. Many agencies, both State and Federal, had ample opportunity to condemn the property for acquisition for the Refuge and recreation area. 3. There are numerous projects in Type 2 and 6 wetlands in this state that the Corps has granted permits for. 4. The property consists of 13 acres, but the applicant has taken measures to avoid affeccing the trout stream by using a holding pond and not filling or building on the property weat of Narnack Creek. 5. The Corps should not have jurisdiction over the property. 6. The constitutiooality of the Clean Water Act itself was contest- ed in that it does not provide compensation for "taking" property, if the application is denied. Comments presented and submitted by others at the hearing generally followed t6e concerns previously expressed in the letters of t6ose who requested a public hearing. A copy of the hearing transcript is attached. B. Ernnnmir R.fforfa pro?rerty Values a. A1 erpgti_ve 1- The issuance of a permit and the aubsequent develop- ment of the project site could be expected to substantially increase the site's monetary worth. The applicant submitted an appraisal (see permit file) for the purpose of estimating the market value of the praperty with and without a Department of the Army permit. This appraisal in essence estimated the value of the permit rather than the value of [he land. it concluded that if the permit.is issued, the land value vould be $482,500. The appraiaer's or applicant's statement that without the permit the land value is zero, is not consistent with Dakota County tasc records, which indicate that the current asaessed value is $50,600. Beure'-Co. has stated it purchased the project site in 1471 with the intention of developing the property for light induatrial uses. The applicant has also sta[ed in more general terms, tha[ its intention with regard to the property is to create an opportunity to maximize i[s project. The applicant has paid property taxes and special assessments on the project site and had the opportunity to sell 6 acres of the site as evidenced by the previous purchase-optioo agreement (see permit file), for $240,000. If the permit is issued the option may be reinstated. There are numerous wetland and upland properties available with light industrial zoning in the area that range in value from $0.20 to $230 per sqvare foot. The applican[ declined to provide information regarding its costs of ownership of the site or any revenue the site may have generated. 24 b. Alt rn__e ative ?- Under this alternative the existing property value would remain unchanged, contrary to the hopes of the investor. If the sites tax-assessed value would decrease upon denial of the permit, then the sites current assessed value may be too high. If the permit is denied, the appli- cant might be able to negotiate a lower assessed value to reduce taxes. There would be no incresse io the applicaot'e opportunity to profit from the operation of a business on, or sale of the property. The inability to develop [he site would likely result in a reduced opportunity to profit from [he site. The loss of potential profi[e would constitute a loss of opportu- nity. The opportunity for sale in an undeveloped state as presently zoned to a private, public or quasi-public agency would remain an available possibility. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has indicated that Beure'-Co. received $67,000 from the origioal parcel, in about 1980, through the condemnation of 11 acres by MaDOT for the Cedar Avenue right-of-way. In a phone conversation, the former owner stated that the price Beure'-Co. paid for the entire parcel wae "significantly less than $67,000." Beure'-Co. has stated that failure to develop this site would result in a grave financial loss, but has not provided ecooomic or financial data to clarify this statement. If the permit were denied, there would be less chance of recouping pro- perty taxes or apecial assessmente on the property than there would be if the permit were issued. If the permit is denied, the applicant could not commercially develop the property as proposed and could not likely sell the property for as much as the $240,000 price in the previous purchase agreement. The potential to sell the site would remain, however, especially to natural resource agencies or organi- zations who have expressed interest in similar, rare aquatic resources in the past. Such sale might create a favorable tax situation for the applicant. 2. Tax_Revenue a. Alternative 1- This alteroative would generate an increase in tax revenues as a beneficial effec[ of the project. In a phone conversation, a Dakota County appraiser stated that a project of this scope and design would have a projected value of 1.3 to 1.5 million dollars and would generate approximately $61,000 annually in taxes. Additionally, there would be a substantial expenditure of monies for fill placement and subsequent construc- tion of the warehouse facility from both salaries and materials. b. Aliernative 2- Tax revenue increases as described under Alternative ] would not occur at the proposed project site. However, similar revenues would also occur if the project were to be built at some other alternative site. 25 3. Eu.Llic_ Facijyties and ServicLL a. Alte,rnatiye,s 1 and 2- Neither alternative would provide public faci- li[ies or services, but each would be a private venture that vould provide for a potential use by members of the public willing to pay for this service. 4. Reeional G=wib, a. Alternatives 1 and 2- Both alternatives would have no appreciable effect on regiooal growth. There would be a minor contribution towards busi- ness located in the region, but in Eagan, influx into the com munity is princi- pally from people desiring to live there. 5. EmTluYmea? A. Alternetive I - Beure'-Co. expects the short-term employment of between 50 to 100 persons during construction of the project. This number reflects construction workers and others including subcontractors, suppliers, and grading and utility vorkera. Once the project is completed, Beure'-Co. expects to hire three employees for operation of the facility, according to the applicant. The employment that might be geoerated 6y development of the portion of the property not used for mini-warehouse storage is unknown at this time. b. Alternative 2- Under this alternative, the employment potential would not occur at the project site as described in Alternative 1. If built at an alternative site, the employment figures described for Alternative i would also be appropriate. 6. Businesa Activitv a. AlternativtU - This alternative would provide a minor beneficial effect by contributing a business activity within Eagan's business community, w6ich contains approximately 240 businesses at present. b. Alternarive 2- Alternative 2 would result in the mini-warehouse facility and any other light industry not occurring on the proposed wetland site. However, these activities could occur on an alternative site with the proper zoning. 7. £atmlaaLLeeL_a8-RLK a. &UrLQatyye l - This alternative would have no appreciable effect on farmland or food supplies, as the entire site is wetlaod and has not been used for any agricultural activity since 1959. b. &JJgtp.atiYC_2. - This alternative would have a minor adverse impact if the project was build on an upland agricultural site, such as the one the applicant owns on the cornet of Blackhawk Road and County Road 30 in Eagan. 26 S. QQmmercial Naviga ion a. Al*a*na ive ? and 2- Neither alternative mould have any appreciable effect on commercial navigation. 9. Flooding EffP s a, elternative 1- The proposed project would result in the filling of 930 acres of wetlands. This would significantly degrade the subject wet- land's natural flood storage capacity. The existing wetlands vegetation retards runoff and serves as a natural retention area. T6e approximaYely 5 acres of buildings and impervious surfacea' runoff would be directed to a stormwater retention pond to be constructed on aite. The retention pond would provide for 1.1 acre-feet of stozage which would outfall into the existing drainage ditch parallel to the railroad tracks. It appears that the outfall pipe's invert elevation of.720.6' feet at a point 375 feet west of Nicols Road may not allow stormwater rnaotf to reach the Nicols Road ditch because of a high point of 722 feet in elevation w6ich ia 80 feet east of the outfall pipe. Therefore, the crater discharged from the outfall pipe could drain to the west to Harnack Creek and contribute to downstream eroeion. The proposed retention pond would not compensate for the loss of the natural retention area of the wetlands. Aowever, flooding effects, while cumulatively significant, would be minor. b. Alternative 2- No appreciable effect would occur as a result of this alternative. 10. Energ,y Needa and Resources a. Alternatives 1 and 2- Under either alternative, heavy equipment used during construction of the project would conaume an undetermined amount of fuel. Operation of the warehouse facility would also conaume minor amount of electricity and fuels. Some warehouse users might save fuel in traveling a shorter distance to obtain warehouse space. All energy effects would be minor. C. Natural Reaource Effects 1. a. Alternatives_l_and_2_ - The exhaust of heavy equipment generated during construction for either alternative would result in a temporary, minor decline in air quality. The operation and use of the completed warehouse facility would have no appreciable effects on air quality, with no long-term impacts occuring. Z. T rres rial Habitat a. AlternativQ_L - The entire 13-acre project si[e consists of wetlands. The project would have no apprecia6le effect on terrestrial habitat. 27 b. Alternative 2- If the project were constructed and built on an alternative site containing upland, there would be an unknown amount of terre- strial habitat lost. This could vary from a vacant disturbed grasaland, a wooded or partially wooded parcel, or a grassland/hayland such as [he appli- cant owns. Whatever type of terrestrial habitat would be impacted at a parti- cular site, it would result in a net loss and a displacement of wildlife species such as small mammals, songbirds or game birds using that habitat. The warehouse facility alone would occapy about 5 acres. 3. w€I.lap.dg, a. A_lterngtyygI - T6e placement of 110,000 cubic yards of fill material would destroy or alter 9.75 acres of the we[land complex. These wetlands would be permanently eliminated and replaced with buildings and impervious surfaces. The project site poesessea wildlife habitat, aesthetic, biological productivity and water quality values which would be affected. These are discussed in greater detail under the appropriate heading in this section. Additionally, the project eite contains a trout stream (see "Affected Environ- ment" III B.) and a 2.28 acre portion of a 3-acre calcaceovs fen. The pro- posed project would result in the Loss of 2.02 acres (88.6 percent) of t6is fen, a rare type of wetland which contains several species of plants classi- fied as threatened or of special concern (see "Affected Environment" C3e) in the state of Minnesota. Additionally, 1.25 and 6.48 acres of Type II - wet meadow and Type VI - Shrub-carr, respectively, would be permanently lost. The proposed filling af wetlands at the project site would effectively eliminate the vegetation and wildlife habitat provided by the existing environ- ment. Those wildlife species using this hahitat (see "Affected Environment" III C.P.) would eit6er perish or would be displaced into either the ha6itat remaining between Cedar Avenue and the project, or into habitat available in Fort Snelling 5tate Park or the MVNWR lands. The filling of these wetlands would result in a permanen[ reduction of habitat diversity which would adver- sely affect the area's natural productivity permanently. The proposed project would directly destroy 66 percent of the calcareous fen on the project area. There are only 21 such areas, totaling no more t6an 700 acres, known [o exist io Minnesota (Minnesota Natural Heritage Program), andare probably one of the rarest wetland plant communi[ies in North America (Donald M. Reed, personal communication). The east fen (see "Affected Envi- ronment" C3e.) is especially significant because it is a fen that is recover- ing from previous agricultural disturbance on the site, and the vegetation of this fen appears to be out-competing the reed canary grass dominating the wet meadow, Type II we[land. This is of scientific interest. b. A1ternativ_g_1 - Under this alterna[ive, t6e productivity, habitat diversity, calcareous fen and other values as described for the existing wetland complex would be maintained. The nature of the wetlands [hat [he proposal would des[roy is such that it would be environmentally desirable to place the project at almost any other site whether in wetlands or not. 28 4. AoTatis...Hatis.aL a. Alternative 1- The proposed project would adversely effect the aquatic habitat provided 6y the wetland complex's vegetation. The discharge of ]]0,000 cubic yards of fill material would destroy [he aquatic habitat provided by the 9.3 acres of wetlands. The existing wetland vegetation serves water quality functions, including the physical filtering of runoff and the assimilation of nitrogen and phosphorus (Merezhko 1973). The aquatic habitat provided by Harnack Creek would be maintained and any impacts minimized through the use of enviro-fencing and the construction of a.45-acre retention pond. The enviro-fencing would minimize sedimentation in[o Harnack creek during fill placement and during slope etabilization. The proposed retention pond, assuming it would provide aquatic habitat comparable to a Type 4 wetland, would provide tor a net gaio of 10 habitat units. This gain would not offset the loss of 532 habitat units due to 9.75 acres of wetlands impacted by the project. b, &JJgzpgtiyg2 - This alternative would result in a long-term ne[ beneficial effect in that the aquatic habitat of the existing wetland complex would be preserved. 5. Habitat Diversity andInterspersion a. Alternative I- The proposed project would impact a diverse variety of wetlaod habitat that is provided by the combination of wet meadow, calcareous fen and shrub-carr areas. A 2-acre area af calcareous fen would be permanently lost as a result of the project. The calcareoue fens should be coneidered a hybrid communi[y (Curtis 1959) where an unusual combination of environmental factors has sorted out and retained suitably adapted epecies from different floristic associations. The Nicola Meadow fen is a good exam- ple of this hybrid community described by Curtis. The fens have a high species diversity and contain a number of State threatened or special concern species (see Appendix A and "Affected Environment" section). This undeveloped land is composed of an interspersion of wildlife habitat which is utilized year-around by a variety of wildlife, including white-tailed deer, ring-necked pheasant, waterfowl, and numerous songbirds and small mam- mals. The reproductive, feeding and resting cover available from the wetland complex, would result in a long-term net loss of habi[at diversity. Although the loss of this wetland may be relatively small in size, the cumulative effect of numerous such piecemeal changes in the metropolitan area would result in a major infringement of the we[lands resource (33 CFR 230.4). b. ?Jp_rpgLive 2- Under this alternative the diverse interspersion of wetland and wildlife habitats described in A1[ernative 1, the "Affected Envizonment" section and other sections, would be maintained as they presently exist. 29 6. sioloei"l Pra1u.s_UvUX a. Alterna[ive 1- The proposed project of this alternative vould result in the destruction or alteratioa of a minimum of 9.75 acres of wetlands and would substantially reduce the productivity of [he wetland complex. In addi- tion to the direct loss of habitat, the use of heavy equipment and an increase in human activity would result in the disruption of wildlife using the remain- ing habita[ in the project area. Productivity would be adversely affected by the loss of the vegetatioo com munities and their contribution to water quality functions(see Section C7.). Fill placement and construction would result in the loss of cover, nest- ing and feeding habitats used by waterfowl, pheasants and passerines. Over- all, a net reduction in bird species diversity and nesting productivity would occur. The new habitat of buildings and iropervious surfaces would not equal the habitat diversity or provide the varied ecotones of the pre-project wet- land complex. The proposed project vould have an adverse impact on the mammal popula- tions within the project site by habitat destruction and a subsequent reductio? in productivity. Small mammals would be impacted through habitat loss and mortality or displacemeat of populations. If fill placemeot occurred during the breeding and rearing seasons, the young of small mammals would suffer direct mortality. The existing populations of small mammals would be eliminated or dispiaced. b. AltgEngtive 2- The impacts to biological productivity as described under Alternative 1 would aot resul[ in a long-term net loss under the no- action el[ernative, but similar impacts to biological productivity could occur at an alternative site, whether upland or not. 7. Surface Water Oualitv a. Alternative ]- The existing wetland vegetation of the project si[e serves water quality functions by physically filtering runoff and the assimi- lation of nitrogen and phosphorus by the wetland vegetation (Merezhko 1973). The sedges and marsh grasses of t6e wet meadow wetlands in particular possess a high potential for phosphorus assimilation. The nutrients assimilated by the wetland flora are then released during decomposition in the winter and spring months when an ecosystem can absorb them with the least environmental damage. The water quality functions provided by the wetland flora produce a substantial beneficial influence on the surface water quality of Harnack Creek. The applicant has proposed the construction of a 0.45-acre retention pond and the use of enviro-fencing/hay bales to minimize impacts during con- struction. The primary purpose of the retention pond is for storm runoff from the buildings and parking surfaces to direct stormwa[er runoff away from the creek and then into a drainage ditch east to Nicol's Road (see "Environmental Consequences" 9a.). b. A1[ernatiyg2 - The result of this alternative Would be no change as the natural water quality functions of [he wetland complex would be main[ained. 30 B. Rater.Sup,ply{Groundvater a. Alternative 1- The proposed project vould occur in an area that is a prominent groundwater diecharge area, which ie evidenced by the numerous springs on the project site and area. Many of these springs discharge t6rough small individual streame to 9arnack Creek which is the major discharge callector for these springs (see Figure 2 and "Affected Environment" section D 2). The placement of fill as proposed would result in the sealing of seven aprings which are preferred discharge points that contribute to the stream flow of Harnack Creek. The loss of these apringa would result in an adverse impact on the stream flow of the creek, resulting in a subsequent lower velocity. The remaining springa on the eite would not offset this loss through an increase in their discharges, but would retain theiz esisting diecharges. Additionally, fill placement and the use of wick drains would impact areas of groundwater discharges that do not discharge to the creek, but result in numeroue wet areas within the wetlands. The wick draine would allov graund- water to be vertically carried to lateral drains and thereby contribute to the coneolidation of [he peat (aee "Alternativea",. II, Alternative 'L). b. Alternative 2- This alternative would result in the eprings and stream discharges being maintained in their present conditiona. 9. So.'ylg a. Alternative 1- The proposed project would reeult in appraximately 110,000 cubic yards of granular fill being placed in this weiland to achieve compaction and consolidation of the peat and muck soils on the project site. The peat soils would lose their natural form and be replaced with up to 10 feet of fill material during construction. Minoz eroeion during fill place- ment and construction of exposed elopea could occur, but the use of enviro- fencing and immediate slope seeding would minimize this impact. b. A1 rnativ - Thie alte m ative would maintain the existing soils in their present condition. 10. Threatened or Endan,g r d pecies a. Aliernative l- No impact is anticipated and no apecies conaidered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be endangered or threatened wildlife or plants, or their critical habitat, were listed by the applicant or are known to exist in the permit area. This application has been coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fiaheries Services. However, Dakota County is within the known or hietoric range of the following threatened (T). or endangered (E).species: Peregrine falcon (Falco nerey'rinus) (E) and the Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leu oc al s) (T). No comments, canflic- ting with the "no-impact" determination, regarding endangered or threatened wildlife or plants, or their critical habitat, have been received. . Nowever, State-listed.(MN. Stat. 97-488) threatened and/or of special concern plant species do occur on the project si[e (see "Affected Environment" 31 III Ce). The project ae proposed would impact the following plant species found on the project site: Sterile sedge (T), Valerian (T), and the Small white ladyslippers (SC). The taking of these species would require a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. These species are found in the calcareous fen plant community and additional lieted species have been or could be found on the site as discussed in the Affected Environment section. b. A1 rnat"v - Under thia alternative, na impacts would occur to the 5tate-listed threatened or special concern plant species on or that may be on the project site. 32 V. Public Involvement The public involvement of this permit process is normally generated during the Corps public interest review. This review during the permit pro- cess generated considerable controversy and included review prior to an appli- cation (see "Purpose and Need for the Proposal" section I.2.), a 30-day public notice comment period and a public hearing held on the proposed project (see Public Hearing Transcript Appendix). Comments received during the review process are discussed in the "Com munity Cohesion" section A7. and are also summarized in the "Controveray" section All. All commenis can also be found in the project file for the permit application (85-284-23). 33 LITERATURE CITED Curtis, J. T. 1959. The Vegetation of tiisconain. Univereity of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. 657 pp. Fernald, M. 1970. Gray's Manual of Botany. D. Van Noetrand Co., New York. 1,632 pp. Gleason, H. and A. Cronquist. 1% 3. Manual of Vaecular Plants of the Northeastern 9nited States and Adjacent Canada. D. Van Nostrand Co., New York. 810 pp. Merezhko, A. I. 1973. Role of Higher Aquatic Plants in the Self-PLrification oF Lakes and Streams. Aydrobiological Journal Vol. 9(4):103-109. Shaw, S. and L. Fredine. 1956. iletlands of the United States. Circular 39. D.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Mastex Plan for the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Final EIS. D.S. Department of t6e Interior. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983. Soil Survey af Dakota County, Minneeota. Soil Conservation Service. Weahington, D.C. 272-pp. Warner, D. 1979. Baseline Ecological Inventory of the Minnesota River Valley. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 34 APrenwix n Plant List of Current Species or Species Rnown [o Occur in the Nicole Meadow Fen Wetland Complex. * Plant Indicatoz s i n ifiL-Aam€ Q¢mmo.-N.ame Gsmmu? stacus** Acyrostis stolonifera Redtop grass BF,WM FACW Alisme iriviale Water plantain AQ OBL &ljyum &Qhpenyrasum Chive onion WM FACW AmoTnha fruticosa Indigo bush WM OBL? Amnhicarna bracteata Hog peanut 4:M,W Androno¢on perardi Big bluestem W FAC? Anemone canadensia Meadow aaemone WM FACk Ayios americana GrOUnd nut WM FACW? Anoceum caenabinum Indiao hemp BF Artemisia serrata Sawtooth sage W,WM Asclepias incarnata Swamp milkweed BF,WM OBL Qsyara¢us officinalis Asparagus WN. Aster iunciformis Rush aster W OBL @s lucidulus Aster EF FACW ? novae-anglia New England aster W FACW ? puniceus Swamp aster E OBL ? simlex Lowland white aster BF,WM FACW ? u be_ llatus Flattop aster BF,WM FACk D€LLLZS, R11-fi111d Water parsnip WM FACW Betula y4mi18 Bog birch SC OBL Bidens cernua Nodding beggarticks WM OBL Bromus ciliatus Fringed brome W FACW? @,,. $glmii Ralm's brome W FACW? CalamaTrostis canadeecis Bluejoint grass BF,WM OB CamRanula americana Tall bellflower BF FAC? C, anTrinoides Bedstraw bellflower W OBL Caltha nalustris Marsh marigold WM OBL Cardamine bulbosa Bulb bittercress 8F OBL Carex bebbii Bebb's sedge BF,WM OBL C, buxbaumii Brown sedge E OBL C, hyAlZicina Bottlebruah sedge BF,WM OBL C, interior Inland sedge BF,WM OBL C, lacustrig, River sedge BF,WM OBL Sc., 1an,li.elap.L3 Woolly sedge BF OBL Sc,, ur,ay=a Prairie sedge BF Gi @LE,rilis (ThreatenedZ Sterile sedge BF OBL rLL st?i n,a" Sawbeak sedge BF OBL Q? "ricta Tussock sedge BE 09L " t.?,Lauls3 Wood's sedge E OBL Ch lon elabra White turtlehead BF OBL Cicuta mac.ulas.a Common waterhemlock WM OBL Ui.U1lm. 3LY.E.dsr- Canada thistle WM C? muticum 5wamp thistle BF,WM OBL rl2m.3p.dLd KiLhardsiana Toadflax WM 35 Convolvujys &ggyy.aL Hedge bindweed BF Cornus etolooife=,g Red osier dogwood SC,WM,BF FACW Cvnerus s rigosus l Umbrella sedge WM FACW us Cyprinedium calceo var. oarviflorum Smali yellow ladyslipper BF FACW Q, candidum Small white ladyslipper BF OBL ?,,, reQinae Showy ladyslipper W EchinocysYis lobata Mock cucumbet SC Ejgo har• smallii Small's spikerush BF OBL Epilobium Qaloratum Purpleleaf willovveed BF,WM OBL Eauisetum arvense Field horsetail WM FAC E, fjy?viatile Water horsetail WM OBL E, nalus[re Marsh horsetail WM FACW Eriophorum a,pPustifoliua Narrow-leaved cottongrass W OBL Ey,patori maculatus Spotted Joe-pye weed BF,WM OBL 9? vurnureus Purple Joe-pye weed BF,WM FAC natocium n fo 'a m Eu Common boneset BF,WM OBL , Fraearia virp,iniana Common sirawberry W Galium anarine Cleavers BF FACU G, boreale Northern bedstraw HF,WM Gentiana andrewsii Bottle gentian W FACI.? Gentianavoa crinata Fringed gentian W OBL? Gerardia tenuifolia Slender false foxglove BF Geum canadense White avens WM Glyceria st,tiata Fowl mannagrass BF OBL Helenium autumnale Soeezeweed BF 08L? Aelianthus P,iyanteus Giant aunflower BF,WM FACW erosseserratus Sawtooth sunflower BF FACW ? tuberosus Jerusalem artiehoke WM FAC? Helioosy,g,Lglianthoides Falae sunflower W,WM Hierchloe odorata Sweetgrass W FACW H,y,poxis hirsuta Yellow stargrass BF FACW Impatiens ?,pensis Spotted jewelweed WM FACW 7uncus dudlvei Rush BF OBL J, nodosus Rnotted rush E,WM OBL Lathvrus ualustris Marsh pea WM OBL Leersie p,=yzoides Rice cutgrass WM OBL hemna minoL Common duckweed AQ OBL Liatris l,yyulistvlis Blaaing star W Lilium ohiladelphicu= Wood lily M' L? suRerbum Turk's-cap lily W,WM i,obelia kdlmii Ralm's lobelia BF OBL L, sin6ilitic3. Blue lobelia BF OBL LvovyA ameLicanus, Water horehound BF OBL " uniflorus Oneflower bugleweed BF OBL Gysimachia auadriflo=y Narrow-leaved loosestrife BF OBL T,vthrum galicaria Purple loosestrife WM OBL? Men[La arvena_F_ Field mint W FACW Hy.hlenbcxZig p,l,Qmerata Marsh muhly BF,WM FACW U, mexicana Mexican muhly W FACW U, richarsonis Mat muhly W FAC U,g&=rtium ULjrinale Watercress AQ OBL 36 Oenothera biennis Evening primrose W,WM FACU Qgypolis rieidior Cowbane BF,WM OBL Parnassia ? auca Grass of Parnassus W OBL Pedicularis lanceolata Swamp lousewort BF FACW Phalaris grundinacea Reed canary grass WM OBL Phlox Rilosa Downy phlox BF Pharagmites sustralus Giant cane WM FACW Poa ^alustris Fowl bluegrass BF P,. Rrateo5;a Rentucky bluegrass W,WM PolyYonum nericaria Ladysthumb smartweed AQ,WM OBL PoRulus tremuloides Quaking aspen LH FAC? Prenanthes racemosa Hattlesnakeroo W Prunus virQiniana Common chokecherry SC pycnanth== =icum Mountain mint W Rhamnus alnifolia A1der buckthorn SC,LH Rbynchospora capy,lacea Fen beak rush (Threat.) W+ OBL Rosa Ligpta Meadow rose W,WM FACU? Rubus pubescens Dwarf blackberry W,WM Rudbeckia app. Coneflower W Rumey orbiculatus Great water dock WM Salyy bebbiang Eebb's willow SC,BF FACW $s candid3. Sage willow SC OBL $, discolor Pussy willow SC,BF FACW ? exi;va Sandbar willow BF,WM OBL ? pjgZg Black willow LB OBL Saxifra¢a pp_nsylvanica 5wamp saxifrage W OBL Scirpus acutus Hardstem bulrush BF OBL $, ycysy,s/validus (hyb•Z Bulrvsh E OBL 5,_ atrovireps Dark green bulrvsh E OBL 5, cypprious Wool-grass BF OBL 5,_ fluviatilis River bulrush BF,WM OBL $y validus Softstem bulrush E OBL Scleria vert+cillata Low nut-grass (Threat.) W+ OBL Scutellaria epilobiifolia Marsh skullcap . WM OBL? Senecio aureus Golden groundsel W "U11m pgrfoliatum Cup plant BF,WM Smilacina stellata Starry false Solomon seal W,WM 5°LidaeQ canadensis Canada goldenrod WM FACU ,^, Qipantea Late goldenrod BF FACW 5, graminjfq,lyg Grassleaf goldenrod BF ,$, missouriensi,q Missouri goldenrod W,WM $? ridde-LUi Riddell's goldenrod BF OEL Ep-artina nectinata Prairie cordgrass BF OBL $tgchvs oalustLL£ Marsh hedge nettle BF OBL Thjlictrum d_asTcaroum, Purple meadow rue BF,WM Thelvn[eris nalus[ris Marsh shield fern W FACI, ILyylochia maritimum Arrowgrass W + OBL 1, nalus[ryg Marsh arrowgrass W+ OBL Tvha anTuLLjjplyg Narrow-leaved cattail E OBL T? S.lauca Blue cat[ail E OBL 1, latifolly Common cattail BF,WM OBL Ulmus americana American elm LN,SC FACH' 37 Urtica dioica Valeriana edulis var. ciliata yer6ena hastata Vpronicastrum virgioicum Vi°la nratincola Vitis Lj,paria Zie?'.?a°denus e1eg(1fs yy? aurea Stinging nettle WM Valerian (Threat.) W Blue vervain WM,W Culver's ioot BF Common blue violet BF,WM Riverbank grape SC,WM White camas BF,WM Golden alexanders BF,WM * This list was compiled from the following sources: OBL1 Survey of Dr. John B. Moyle, September 1976. Surveys of Robert Dana, Univ. of Minnesota, conducted between 1973-1976. Survey of Welby Smith, MN DNR, cooducted in 1980. Survey of Steve Eggera and Jerry Smith, Corpa of Engioeers and Iielby Smith, MN DNR, conducted 12 S 18 Dec. 1984. Survey of Steve Eggers and Jerry Smith, COE, and Welby Smith, MN DNR, conducted 14 May 1985. Survey of Steve Eggers aod Jerry Smith, COE, and Donald Reed, Biologiet, 5EWRPC, conducted 20 June 1985. Survey of Steve Eggers and Jerry Smith, COE, and Welby Smith, MN DNR conducted S August 1985. ** Plant Community AQ - aquatic LH - lowlaod 6ardwood SC - ahrub-carr WM - wet meadow BF - both fens W - west'fen E - east feo 38 Iodicator Status Wetlnnd TnA;cnrnr Rrnrus Qnragnri a Ueed bv National Wetlaods.Ieyeetorv Indicator Indiratnr $ymb01 Defloitloo pBLIGATE AYDROPATE OBL A plant species that is geoerally (99X of the time) found only in vetlauds uader natural conditione, but vhich may persist io areas converted to uplands (noovet- lands) or eaist in uplaod sites if plaot- ed there by mao. Examples: smooth cord- grass, bald cypress. FACDLTATIVE WETLAND FACW A plant apecies tha[ ueually ( 67-49Z of the time) is found io wetlanda, but vhich may be found occasiooally in oonvetlands under natural conditiooe. Eaamples: greeo as6, red oeier dogwood. FACULTATI9E FAC A plaot epeciee that sometimes (33-671 of the time) occurs io wetlands, but vhich may also be fouod commonly in uplands. Examples: honeq locust, Caoada vild rye. FACDLTATIVE OPLAND FACU A plaut epecies that usually occurs in uplaods, but which may rarely ( 1-33% of the time) be fouad in vetlande. Esam- ples: southern live oak, common evening primroee. * All plaat epecies not qualifying in ooe of the above categories are OPLAND (DPL) apeciee. + Found io aurveys pre-1960, not found io surveys to present. 39 nPpErDix e Wildlife species observed st the Nicols Headow vetlend comple:. Hhite-tailed deer Od oil +s YirQioiaeue Beaver Castor rgnadeeeis Gray squirrel . i,rnc r_arelinPOSis Birds *Mallatd &Ag platyrhyechos *Blue-vioged teal Apgg disc°rs Green heron Butorid2A virPcens Spo[ted saodpiper Acty=jg macularia . Riog-oecked pheaeaot phasiaeiis colchicus Mourning dove Z eo'd+ a macroura fAmerican robin lyrdus m+izratorius Nozthern oriole Iciezvs ggjbylg Red-wioged blackbird Aggjpyug Dho oi .s Eastern cowbird Molothrue g= Eastern kingbird Tyraonus tyraneus Commoo flicker Colaytes anuratus Warbling vireo Vireo 2jjyug *Sedge vren Cistothorus nlatensis Common goldfinch Spinus tristie *Yellov warbler Deedroica petechia Common yellovthroat Geoihlvnie trichgg *Song sparrow w laspiza mplodig Svamp sparrow maloeniea eeor?iaea *Breeding on the praject aite 40 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NORTH CENTRAL OIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 338 SOUTH CLARK STREET GHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60803 Honorable Willfam Frenzel NOV 4 1985 United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C 20510 ?!OV 14 198x Dear Congressman Frenzel: On January 23, 1985 Brigadier General Jerome B. Hilmes responded to your inquiry concerning a Section 404 permit application from Mr. Luther Stalland on behalf of Beure'-Co. for a 9 acre fill project in Eaqan, Minnesota. At that time General Hilmes stated his intent to inform you on the outcome of the permit action in the St. Paul District. General Hilmes has been reassigned and I am providing the final report on this case. The cause of concern was an application to fi11 9 acres of wetlands ?adfacent to a Minnesota designated trout stream. The wetland is part of an area known as the Nichols Meadow Fen and contains pockets of calcereous fen, a rare wetland plant community. The public interest review generated a great deal of local opposi- tion to the project. A public hearing aas requested by several citizens as well as by Congressman Bruce Vento. The hearing was held on May 20, 1985. After considering the public hearing records as well as the record gathered by St. Paul Dietrict, Colonel Joseph Briggs, St. Paul District Commaader, found that issuance of the permit would be contrary to the public interest. The permit was denied on October 10, 1985. A copy of Colonel Sriggs' Statement of Fin i is enclosed for your information. I trust this inPormation is sufPicient for your needs. Sincerely, J SE& PT? igadier General, USA Enclosure Commander and Division Engineer April 1, 1985 Colonel Edward G. P.app District Engineer, St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1135 U.S. Postal Office & Custom House St. Paul, Mn. 55101-1479 Dear Sir. I am writing to protest the filling and development of another of our few remaining wetlands. It is an outrage that someone can sti11 initiate such a project in an area Ithat we so desperately need to preserve our dwindling wildlife population and especially in the Minnesota Valley. I am refering specifically to the case NCSCO-P.F (85-284--23). It is shocking that the city of Eagan hasn't taken a more enlightened attitude about this,by zoning the area in such a way as to offer it protection '?-rom this kind of threat. I request that you conduct a public hearing to allow sufficient public comment. P public hearing should also serve to inform the officials of Eagan as to the concerns of their own citizens about a project like this. Surely there is little awareness of this problem or the cries of outrage would be deafening. Thank you for your attention Sincerely Hugh C. Price Hugh C. Price 5701 Normandale Rd., suite 325 Edina, Mn. 55424 on wnemer m g'an[ a perm+t ro Duild o-x - n stream, but DNR regiona] rtydrolo- "EUliding Eown Ihere is tEe dumbesi ' ' . ? gisi Kent Lokkesmoe seld the creek thing I ve ever deard; Meyar Hea 3 i stlll may 6e a}fected 6y shif[ing In 9lomquLSt sald Ne councll could eol See neigl bon and several go ern- i l b undwaterdrain ?° age• deny StallanA bwuu ^tee tact ro ment agenc en e- es o?D? ?e p meinv fEat lie does have mNOg" cause Uey say We romplex coulA "Mere is potendel for damage aad e - demage e trout stream, wIIClife Ea66 io[ ot uncertaintles eDaut how i[ "WC have conCeros tEat tEe lend Is tat eod unsitlve Dlant li}e by alter- (builEing) could be done and sa we no[ zoned properly," 6ut Eesed on ing tbe wetland's drdiuage system. . ? recommeaded lhat tde permit rc the mning as U 5lands now, "I br quest Oe denied. TRere is otser lena Ileve he would heve woo e lawsuit-i/ iDe oppositfon ha9 taught owners - in Me meVV area that can urve for Ne councii deNed Nm," sne said.: ' Lutser StellanA aod Ris m4 Peter, af . 3te1f Photo6y Doneld Bleck. - . .., . ' stoisge;' salA Curt Sper]cs, Poliutlan • Edtna, Eysutp[ise. . ' Mary Ramnarlna and WBltar Whita stood et Ma edge of ?etlands whare a warehaua9 eomplex ia iaaned Cotrol Agency sfEf} member. Lulhet Sfalland seW 6e tloevn'[ ba Ileve the roject pi11 E Ne N The Stallau.ds Aought 13 acres ottDe . .. . . 'a: . p . , . . . , ; - -. . • . ' ? ihe Minnaota Wi(dlife Aetllege p erm ec - ronment "We 6eve trtcd [o protM wetlend about 20 years ago wit6 fIIe, "It [Ee Cqrps Aeda me the perml4 CurPS appfoval ls requited Ior bulid• DeperNmeot ? o[ NaNrel Resourca Foundatlon aLSO opposes Ue propo? Nls streem aod arc willing to build intentlon of buliding on it one day. ; they ere going to bave rodeny every• - ing on wetlands under Ne teCerel (DNR) say that could aiter the area's aL "I just couldn'[ Eelieve trtat such a around It Through design, tGe con- 'CSe clty rezoned Ihe land fof.li6ht ane"who owns llgDt indYBhiat.lend Cleen Water AcL A declsion. Is ex- Crelnage and damage the surround- seasidve plece ot properiy was being sWCtlon "won't hother Ne water ta- Industrte4development aud the Sta4 on wetlands; he seid., c; -. , : ? - pected within 40 deys after the hear- Ing erea, wGlc? incluEes Nlcal's - ' toosidered for development It 6 e f ble ar anytGing Our plao L9 lea5ible lendv sey t?ey d1AnR e?epect any . . .- .. ., ? . ing. ? Meadow Fe4 aoe o( 22 de signeted very speeial erea. We liave storsge and won't destroy any ot Ne ecolo- trouble whm tLey QeUded to bulld ' -- CEveryooe up and downeme river Eas bee bulldia for m " id calcareove fens in Minnesota.' - T e nY th it Po t "i Duildingy, shopping mells end park- ' gy;' Ce sald. , _ g y s, se R o pr p e e s e r the n ne s[or- Ing lots rnming out ot our eaxs, seld "I am suipriud by tEe peoplr.tCat,? LuNer 5telland;who estlmetes the. age bulldings - most ot them 40 Oy "Sensitlve plenb graw !n Ne fere," I Hugh Phce, toundatlon tlirector. "All we geln In Nis fight is keeping oppox ihe projec[ whe¢ Its;pee¢., velueof tEe land at. 5500,000. If the 200 feet - the Slallen4s wlll have to . sald feiry SmiN, pennl[ otftcer e[ . '. - the wlldtite hero;' Ramnatlne seid cieet tor many yeers^ thet IGe lend-. S permlt H CeNed,he seid ALe StaP . briug In 110,000 cabic yacd5 ot ti1L , the Muy Corps ot EnglOttis. Sedge -i .. [a4( fall, the Eeg9n Ctty Cauocll voF , - ."We jus[ wnnt things to stay as Ney - coWd 6e developed, Petu talleqd Iend s wi0 sue the Corys ? end Iloweriug Valanan piants, which ed 3-2 ta glve the proJat prelimloary ere." '(he- Pollutlou Coptrol Agency and ?lem on t¢e sfate s Wreatened. plaet epprovel: Atteough sRe believp Nq[ - , , .2 ? -. . . ?, . ': 4' . . ? . ... .. . :rx .,, . , . .. . . . .. ' - . ' .. Interim census be eY Jim Aeams taken in- Eden Prairie . . . V `. r . . _ ' Douglas Reedet.'Chat would briag . • yJ Irtigarian sprinklera help meintein the moisture of the ten, Eut alone they cannof raprotluoe the wetlenO'8 apecial chemical balence. Fighting . for a fen . Progress poses a threat to rare and old wetland By Gery Nerrey the Aamage from human progress Suli Wriier cm6odied in a nceded expansion to the Seneca waste waier treatmeni leannu teete supped carefully, htt DlaN a tew hunJred yards northrast eyesscanningthcdeadbrownaflast ofthefen. year's vegeuiion far one panicular bright splash af living green. Nimis Mcedow is one of anly about ' SOcalcareous,orcalcium-rich,fcns It wouid bc a small viclory lo spot in Minnesola. Experts know of only the shaots of common valerian, an about 200 in the wodd. It is a endangercd perennial her6 found in remnanl ofthe Minnesou that caicarcous Cens such as lhis me. 11 i ezislcd aRcr the glacien retreated also would be a sigretha[ the Nicols 10,000 years ago. Meadow Fen, a few precious acres in the Minnesola Rivcr Valley in Calwreous ftns dill'er Gom olher Fagan,mightyetsurviveAuman wetlandsbecauselheirplanls,mme pmgress ' afthem found nowherc else, are noufi5hed by the oxygen-WaI welet '7here s mme mwdow rue,° Leete ) that rim through calcium and says. Then she points lo scores of magnesium deposits w the surface, snail sM1ells Uat may lie Ior years creaung a unique soil cnvironmenL withoutdissolving 6ttauu ofthe Only planls such as the rommon alkaline soil. "You woulM9 6nd valerian, which cen wilhsland such this in a bo& " ' conditions, can live there for long. Leele, a hydrogeologist wilh the The Metropoliun Waste Control MinnesaWDepenmemafNaturol CommissionisexpandingSeneceta Resources, is one otuores ot peoDle wha have 6een fighting lo mitigale ' Fen wntinued on page SB At laft, Jeanane LeMe, s hydrogaologlsl wiN the MlMOSOta Depertment ol Naturel Reaoureas, Checketl on B pump site tor a relnqactlon well. Leete Is counting on the new weler- roinjectlon syalem to increass unAarground water presaura to reclerl the springs, which are BSwnliel W NB 9ufvivel Of the /an. Abovs, the common wlerien, whlch i6 ona ol the lew plenle . that thrive In Na unique aoll envlronmant al Nicols MeaEOw, one ol anly e0ou150 celceraous, ar calciumaich, fena in Minnesole. Fen Caod,., ,,m,UC IB xrve fasagrowing fouthern suburbs, es weli as parts ofBloomington ?-across the river, wherc Lhe gianl Mall ofAmerica is under conaWC!ion. y-Hut the concrck bue fw Seneay ?. new unlcs must be poured on tolid ;ground. That meant pumping watu - aa much as 4.5 million gallona a day - oul of the ground and inw the nver, a praess known as = "dewatering" • The Pumping began in aPring 1989, •?-anQ 6y Iast summa, rcsidenu on the 6lulli overlooking the fen wero complaining that lhev wella werc drying up. Despile the drought, dewatering was 6lamed. About the same time, Leete, ONR bounist We16y SmiLh and olhen : noliccd suryrising changes in the fea ' -The dewatering lud lowered t4e 'undergfound water pressure qnd •reversed the nawral llow, of the springs. lnslead of percolating 6icarbonates and sWfaks to the ?surface, the springs were drying up. This yar. Lam, Smiih and others' erc chaiting Niwls Mwdow almost ,•'daily lo sce if the new season, witb ? -wme help from humans, can presene ihe fen. They mwsurc the .iAallow monitoring wells and the - dttp welis. When the dap well s6ows a higher 4! kvel than the shallow well, Ihey will .' know the naturel Qow hss been 1. restorcd. "They had 12.2 fat (froro the top) .yesurday," Lcete says u she lowers e ? mwsuring line inro the dap-we0 . , PiPe A"bcep•• on the baltery. powered devia tells hu No end of %.iht line has hit weter.'Thel's 12.22 fea. All right•' But the shallow well is almost e foot Aighu, oniy 1132 fat from the top. °We Aavedt gotten Oow mversal yet;' ahe uys, su6dued. 1.eete is counfiog on a new water. .- ?•rcinjeclion sysum to incrau ?••undeigound waur preuwe to slart ? the springs again. The fim rcinjeclion well xent in a (ew weett ago. Atkr «s[ing, mOrt :.wells will be sunk near the &n. The waste commiuion continues to deweter near the plaat, 6ut wme of that wata- insiead of beioQ pumped to the nver-now will be :. pumped upsveam to recharge the „area near the fen. . ?In eddition, a cprinklw irtigation 7 stem, similar to that uad in farm lds, spnys the Cen. Bul it will rcmain Acalcareous fen ody if the peat soil is fed from the minerals 6elow. `lfwe just uxd irrigetion;we'djuet . Aave another 6og," I.ecle seys, _ moving again, swdying the 4round• . for valetian. nmiuion, the DNR, arAood residenu aod which in the past have ul dowalerin6, ue . an adminisintive law ope w come uv WiN a n8 umus on waur conswcGon anC, nana on Senw't "7'hero's a Iot ofhisWry herc, a lot of misWSt," said Admimstrative Iaw Judge Phyllis Reha, who acts as a facililawc "We'ro trying to ovcrcomctha4" Another meAiaUon session occurted Eriday. Leete had predicted it muld 6e significanl, and it was: All panies agccd to good-faith panicipation antl a commilment lo the process. The waste wmmission already is cooperaliag wilh the DNR on the irrigalion and reinjaKion sysIems. Eagineets have made Oesign changes $o that only small areas around the plant will have to 6e pumped dry for munlenance. Workers expect to finish pouring concrece for the plant's new tanks within the next few weeks, said Rebecca Flood ofthe wasie wmmission. "When Ncy complete t6at bxse... . we wn allow the water level up 10 or 11 fttt Gom what we've had lo Imep i4° she said. That should mean leu dewalering and haslen the day when the sDrings again bring calcium-nch waier w Nicols Meadow fen. Until then, l.eele and others chcek the monitoring welis. Md someumes, as sht did Thursday, Leete scarches the fen for those special life fonns tlut indicate the fen is surviving She approaches en area wherc she•s soee common valerian befom. "We sdould be within yards," she seys But she keeDS walking, looking IefY, righl, front. She walks near ihe fen's north edge, dipping belween encroachmenls of Jogwoud Io scout a bey ofineadow. Suddrnly she takes two quick sleps and stoops. "Valerian!° But she wishes Smith were there to verify it. She pulls a copy of"WeAand Plants and Plant Communities from Minnesum and Wisconsin" Gom her Icit. "The leaves are the right form. T6e vcining is right." But she still doubts herself. "1'm sure not going dig it up to look al the wou." She studies the plant. Then the book. "It seys it should be ciliated. Yn. This is it," she exclaimg noting the denu while hairs on the Inves. "I can tell Welby we found valerian. "It looks possible the (en will be saved;'she says the next day, alter another trip m the len.'7'm optimistic. 1 saw more valerian - two little ones - the beginnings of buds showing." Gold C May 29, 1985 Distriet Engineer, St. Paul District, US Army Corps of Engineers, 1135 U.S Post Office and Custom House, St. Paulg Minnesota 55101-1479 Attn: Regulatory Funetions Braneh RE: NCSCO-RF (85-284-23) Section 404 Enclosed is the report of the borings done by the Mi.nnesota Highway Department. It was mistaking left out of the materials turned in at the public hearing on May 20, 1984. We would like to add a few comments in support of our opposition regarding the development of the area referenced. 7) In support of our contention that the property is unsuitable for buildingv Mr. Walter White has given us the permission to relay one of his experiences trying to build on the proposed site whieh was part of 40 aeres he had owned since 7946. Some years ago, he tried to build the foundation for a house on a site that was approximately 25 feet from Nicols Road (then Cedar Avenue). He maintains regardless of where he tried, he would encounter water or springs at depths of 3 or more feet of exeavation. He abandoned the idea and moved the house to a location off Silver Bell Road. He is willing to verify this by phone but is unable to write because of health problems. His address is 2137 Silver Bell Road, Eagan, I•IN 55122; phone number 612-454-7248 2) We have a concern about the safety of the people (many of them being ehildren and families) who use Nicols Road especially in the spring and summer months. Since the opening of the new Cedar Avenue Highway, Nicols Road has become somewhat of a haven for walkers, 3oggerso bikers (using the state built bike path across the river), and nature lovers in general. There is also a state built boat dock that is heavily used during the boating season. Nicols Road is the only access to this proposed development which would generate extra traffie and a clientele that is generally unfamiliar with the nature of traffic in the area thus posing some potential dangers. In addition, aceess to Nicols Road is via Silver Bell Road, a residential street that is already overloaded with the commereial trafFic of Brad Ragan's Tire Company, Field Maintenanee, and more to come from the proposed developments between Silver Bell Road and Highway 13• Sineerely, Mary & Sheldon Ramnarine 3785 Nicols Road Eagan, PA1 55122 NCSCO-RF (FS-284-23) Beure'-Co. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT ENGINEER ]. NI TRODU_ CTjQN Beure'-Co., a Minnescta limited partnership, propeses to place fill material into wetlands adjaceni to Harnack Creek in the City of Eagan, Minnesota. The purpose of the project is to make the 9.75-acre site suitable fcr commercial and/or light industrial development, thezeby enabling the applicant to realize s financial re[urn from its original investment in [he property. A more comple[e project description appears in the public notice, vhich is par[ of the at[ached environmental assessment, and in the assessment itself. 2. 2291jD =9.N a. This wetlaod is a water of the United States as defined in 33 CFR 323.2(a)(7) because it is a wetland adjacent to a tributary to a navigable water of the Uni[ed States. It is adjacent [o Haroack Creek, chich eventually flows into [he Minnesota River, a navigable water of the United States. b. The discharge of dredged or fill ma[erial into this cater of the ' United States requires authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Ac[ (33 U.S.C. 1344). An individual Department of the Army permi[ is required under 33 CFR 323.3(a) and by virtue of the regional conditions developed fcr Minnesota under 33 CFR 330.7 ( a) . c. This project involves a discharbe of fill ma[erial as defined in 33 CFR 323.2(1). 3. &PPL}.CATION-LEVIEW DATA a. ?v?lic N¢Lice A public notice was issued on N,arch 11, 39E5, and expired on April 9, 15P5. b. en??iLaameaiaLA.s?ea??eet Ar. assessment has been comple[ed cencerning the environmer,t21 effects of [l;r project. The following is a summary ef the more comprehensive inferraticr ccntained in the permit file. NCSCC-RF (85-284-23) Beure'-Co. c • P1LL11c- H a 3L10.C In response to numerous requests from the general public and a request from Congressman Bruce Vento, a public hearing was held on May 20, 1985, at Eagan City Hall. The hearing transcript is on file and aes considered in ev2luating this application. d• District personnel visited the project site on several occasions during the public interest review of [his permi[ applicetion. e. tieetines District personnel have me[ with the applicant on several occasions to discuss various aspects of the Corps' permit process, as well as specific considera- tions in the review of this application. 4. PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMENTS a. Public Comm?? Letters of objection were received from many memberc of the general public. They are availabie in the permit file and are summarized in some detail in the environmental assessmen[. In geAeral, the objectors cited the environmental degradation that would result from the project. People speaking against the project at the public hearing shared the same concerns as had those who wrete letters in response [o the public notice. A letter in favor of the project was received from s neighboring landewr.er. The same landewner was the only person, other than the applicant's aeent, who spoke in favor of the project at the public hearing. In addition, the appli- cant forwarded a resolution from the City of Savage, Y.inneseta, in support cf permit issuance. b • €?ecal.?Late?a? L¢cal?eacx?ammea?s The N,innesota Department of Ra[ural Resources (MDNR), Divisien cf k'sters, initially expressed concern over the project's potential effect en Narnack Creek, a designated [rou[ stream. Af[er receiving revised plans from the applicant, the MDhF Divisien of waters stated [hat the effects on the treut s[rean had 6een sa[isfactorily mi[iga[ed. Nowever, the MDkR Divisien cf Fis:. and Wildlife recained concerned abou[ the project's potential effects er [he calcareous fen plan[ coremunity in the srea. This concern was expressed in c!:e official response to the Corps' public notice from M,?NR Commissioner Alexender. Thzt letter, dated March 19, 79F5> specificsllp addressed the prejEC['s potential to sffec[ ind:rectly the calcareous fen vest of the fil: 2 NCSCC-HF ( 85-2E4-23) Beure'-Co. site. However, subsequent site visits by KDi:R and Corps personnel have con- firmed that there are remnan[ fen areas at the fill site itself, and [hat a[ least one S[ate-designated threa[ened plant species (C3ZEX sterilis) exists there. The Sts[e Historic Preservation Officer did not objec[ to issuance of the permit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requested that the permit be denied, citing the projec['s failure to comply with the Sec[ion 404(b)(1) guidelines (i.e., upland alterna[ives are presumed to exist), the adverse effects of the project on wetland habitat, the project's potential fcr harming nearby wet- lands. aod the failure of the stormwa[er-holding pond to replace habitat resources that would be lost. Comments were also received from the manager of FWS's Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. He also urged [hat the Corps deny the permit be- cause of the environmental losses the project would cause. The U.S. 6nvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) had written a letter in January 1985 during a preliminary review of the proposal. That le[[er sta[ed the agency's belief that the project would have adverse environmental consequences and requested additional information about the possible effects of the pro- ject. The EPA's response to the Corps public notice reiterated the request for that information and requested denial of the permit if the information were not provided by the applicant within 15 days of the request. The appli- cant's response to the questions was part of the material submit[ed to the Corps on June 27 , 1985. The Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area initially stated it had no comment on the project, but subsequently reevaluated its position and recor- mended denial of the permit. The reasons cited foz the recommendation related to current Council policies emphasizing the importance of preserving wetlancs. The Council stressed that calcareous fens and trout streams such as Harnack Creek are truly valuable natural resources that the Council wants [e see protec[ed. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (N.PCA) responded to the public netice with s let[er [hat emphasized the need for appropriate neasures to prctect water quality in Harnack Creek. The lefter also addressed the overall ir.p.act= of the project and recommended [hat the Corps s[rongly consider denial ei tFe permi[. In making this recommendaticn, the 2lPCA r,oted [hat the projett vas not wa[er dependent and that [here appeared to be alternatives to the cnr- struction of the project in wetlands. I[ cras the N.PCA's opinion, therefcrc, tha[ the prcject did not cemply with the 404(b)(1) guidelines. Also centainc•;: ir, this file is a copy of a let[er from MPCA te Mr. Luther S[alland, gene::l 3 NCSCO-RF (SS-264-23) Beure'-Co. partner of Beure'-Co. This letter responded to points raised by Mr. S[alland in an earlier letter to Governor Perpich, a copy of which is also in [he file. (Additional MPCA comments are discussed belew.) In response to these commenis, and to issues raised in general during the public interest review, the applicant's agent, Mr. Pe[ez Stalland, has pre- sented a variety of arguments. These were made in conversa[ions and meetings with Corps personnel, in [estimony given a[ the public hearing, and in forn,al correspondence with the St. Paul District. Mr. Stalland's overali position is thoroughly set forth in his June 27, 1985, letter. The following is a summary of the points made in that letter, together with the St. Paul District's respoose to each poiat. es appropriate: (]) The wetland to be filled is not within [he Corps' regulatory juris- diction because it is neither a"navigable water of the United States" nor a "water of the Uni[ed S[ates" as defined in the Corps' permit regulations. RESPON5E - See the jurisdiciional de[ermina[ion at 2.a. above. (2) The area to be filled is not a wetland under Corps jurisdiction because it is not inundated or saturated continuously, because iT used to be common pasture land, because it is a wetland type (II/VI) [hat is extremely common in Minnesota, because 2hese [ypes of Wetlands are not even classified by the Minneso[a DNR, and because it is not directly created by flooding of navigable waters. (Two court decision_s were cited in this discussion.) RESPONSE - As specified by Corps regulations, wetlands are identified in the field by studying the plan[ species and the soil types at a given site. This has been done at the Beure'-Co. site; its identity as a wetland is thoroughly do[umented in the enclosed environmental assessment. kith regard to [he question of soil saturation, the applicant's own engineers confirm that "gcoundwater (is) encountered near the ground surface .. "(see the May 13, 1985, letter from Soil Exploration Company to Mr. Stalland). The project si[e may, indeed, have been used as pas[ure land 34 years asc; depeoding on the wetland type, it is not unusual for wetlands to be used for hay production in M.inneso[a. 9e that as it may, the area in its preser.[ state contains a prevalence of wetland plant species. khether given we[land types are commcn or unusual in Minnesota has nothir,,, to do with the Corps' definition of wetlands for regula[ory purposes. It ma?, cf course, be a fac[or [o be considered inthe public in[erest review cf a per^_t application once jurisdiction has been established. In this case, howevzr, [he presence of calcareous fen species at the fill site would indicate [ha[ the wetland i,5_ unusual anZ therefore of greater con[ern [han others in ite general category. 4 NCSCO-RF (E5-284-23) Eeure'-Co. In general. it is irue [hat iypes II and VI wetlands dc not come under the regulatory jurisdiction of the MDNR; that is, they are not designa[ed as s[ate "protected waters." Hewever, the limits of state jurisdic[ion are not perti- nen[ to a discussion of federal permitting authority, nor do they bear on the identification of ve[lands by soil type and the presence of cer2ain plant species. It is also true [hat the vetlend in question has not been directly crea[ed by the fiooding of the Minnesota River, a"navigable wa[er of the Uni[ed S[ates." Bovever, there is nothing in the Corps' current tegulations, nor in existing regula[ory policy, that would make this a pertinen[ fact in our exercise of individual permi[ jurisdiction in this ma[ter. Harnack Creek, together vith its adjacent wetlaods, is clearly a"water of the Uaited States" subject to Corps regulatory jurisdiction as expleined at 2.a. above. (3) The Corps public ioterest review is esseotially one of balancing project benefits and de[riments, with each of the pertioent factors being documented in the administrative record. RESPONSE; The St. Paul District agrees; the documentation in this case is contained in this Statement of Findings and in the attached Environmental Assessment. (4) Several "issues" are listed that the applicant con[ends must be considered by the District in reaching a permit decision. The applicant's agent states that six of these issues have been indicated by the District to be important, and adds several more tha[ he considers of importance. RESPONSE: Among the first six issues listed by Mr. Stalland are several that may be included under the broad category of the overall impact of the project on the wetland in question. It should be noted that or.e result of this project would be the outright and permanent destrvction of 93 acres ef wetland and the concomitant loss of gll benefits this wetland provides. The next issue suggesied by Mr. Stalland is that the expectations an' d wishes of a private proper[y owner must be considered, and that the preperty ewner has a righ[ to reasonable private use and enjoyment of the prcperty. As Corps re6ulations make tlear (33 CF& 320.4(g)), this right is subject to fed- eral regulation for environmental protection. Moreover, as the explanatezy para- graph to [his section states, the "expectations (of a private prepert}' ewr.er? may net prevail when public interest considerations lead te denial ... cf a perni[." Mr. S[alland then cites a recent decisicn elsewhere in the countr}• vhere the court ruled thac a regulatory decision that leaves a property owner uitl? nc economically visble use was a regulatory [akir.g, and the propertc escer v;: due conpensation. As Mr. Stalland is aware, there is presently no provisicr 5 NCSCO-RF (85-284-23) Beure'-Co. in the Clean Water Act or in the implementing Corps and EPA regulations for the purchase of (or o[her compensation for) proper[y for vhich a Corps permit has been denied. Another iseue addressed by Mr. Stalland is the responsibili[y of the Corps to consider the relative value of the wetland site in question and the possibility that the proposal will have a minimal impact on the aquatic envi- ronment. The value of this vetland is documented elsewhere in this Staterent of Findiags and in the a[[ached Environmental Assessment. The complete and permanent destruction of over 9 acres of wetland is considered by the St. Faul District to represent more than a minimal impact on the aquatic environment. (5) In discussing the "public need" for the project, the applicant's attorney relies heavily on the fact that the project site is in an area zoned light industrial by the City of Eagan, and tha[ the city has granted prelia:- nary plat approval for the project. Citing Corps Regulatory Guidance Letter 82-8 and Corps regulations at 33 CFR 320.4(a)(2)(i), (j)(4), and, by implica- tioa, (j)(2), Mr. Stalland argues that, in general, the Corps should oot make e permi[ decision contrary to sta[e and local land use and zoning determina- tions, unless there are overriding factors of the national interest. RESPOrSE: With regard to sta[e approval, (see 33 CFR 320.4(a)(j)), the District has received frem Mr. Stalland a cepy of a letter fzem the MDhP. stating its villingness to issue a permit for the taking of endangered and threatened plants. (The ac[ual permit has not been issued at this time.) Firs[ of all, I am not convinced tha[ the threatened-plant permit represents a "favorable atate determination" in the context of [his portion of the Corps' regulations, and in light of the overall scope of the proposal. The state's regulatory authority over the taking of certain plants is not equivalent to the Corps' jurisdittion over the filling of the 9-acze wetland. This limi[a- tion to the state's jurisdic[ion is emphasized in the MDNR's letter. However, even if the state threatened-plant permit is considered to represent a"favor- able s[ate determina[ion," the fac[ remains tha[ there are in this cose ever- riding national factors of the public in[eres[. These include the destruction of wetland acreage of a type (calcareous fen) that is rare nationally and the general concern on a national level for the preservation ef wetlands. More- over, thi=_ section of the Corps' regulations also specifies that all factcrs of the public ioteres[ review remain per[inent even when a favorable s[a[e de[ermination has been received. As is discussed elsewhere in this docurcer.t and the permit file, several of these factors dictate my finding that the project is not in the public interest. With resard to city zoning and pzeliminar}• plat apptoval, the city F:a: made clear that both the zoning and the plat approval were made withouc addressing the specific envirenmentzl issues that might be per[inent at zcy given site, or at this si[e in particular. In fac[, the preliminary Flat approval was predicated on existing zooing and was specifically condi[icnrc tc rrquire tha[ environmental issues be examined before the final p1a[ caould be 6 NCSCO-RF (65-284-23) Beure'-Co. approved. (See the April 8, 1965, letter from the Eagan City Administrator.) Moreover, the ci[y states [ha[ ic does not have the staff to analyze these environmental concerns and is relying on the review and input of the appro- priate agencies (in effec[, the Corps) to help in its deliberations. The comments of the Metropolitan Council•(see letter of May 20, 1985) are also of interest in this regard. The Council points out that its review of the city's comprehensive plan did no[ include shoreland or environmental protection ordinances, nor did it coosider zoning or site plans on an individual basis. The Council also notes that environmencal ordinances can overlsy 2oning ordi- nances and can override zoning on an individual basis. At this time, the city apparently has no environmental or shoreland ordinaoces tha[ specifically address this project at this site. Corps regulations (33 CFR 320.4(j)(2)) require me. under normal circumstances, to accept decisions by local govern- men[s regarding zoning and laod use matters unless there are significar.t issues of overriding national importance. As the facts above clearly show, there has been no specific decision regarding land use at this si[e by the local government. Although this and other nearby areas were zooed light industrial yeacs ago, the zoning process is today undergoing refinemen[; in its presen[ state of flux this process does not represent a reliable indica- tion of the city's final position regarding the filliog of the site in ques- tion. In fact, the City of Eagan has stated that it will look to [he Corps, among other agencies, for guidance in the matter of applying site-specific environmental considerations when conaidering proposals in portions of large, undiffezentiated zoning tracts. It is thus inappropriate for me to accept the argument that the zoning designation in this case represents proof of the "public need" for this project. On the contrary, the information ob2ained during the District's public in[erest review indicates that the greater public need, at [he present time, is for the preservation of this wetland in an unaltered state. (6) Mr. Stalland states that the private need for the project is demon- strated hy the existence of a willing purchaser, and [hat "project need" is further demonstrated by the fact [hat a nearby mini-storage facility has a three-month waiting list. RESPONSE: Throughout this public interes[ review, Mr. Stalland has stressed [ha[ the "priva[e need" for this project is iden[ical with the appli- cant's desire to realize a profit on its original investment in [he property. I de not accept this argument. The purchase of this property 14 years aEC 4•as a speculative land investment. During the first 5 years that the applica.^.: owned [he preperty (un[il September ], 1476), fill could have been placed ir, the we[land without a Depaztment of the Army permit. Even after that date (un[il early in ]985) there was [he possibili[y that some fill could have been placed under the terms of the nationwide permit authorizing discharges zb.ve [he headwa[ers. Hewever, the applicant did no[ make use of this "windci: cf oppertunity" to fill [he project site. Now, as the applicant contenc's, its goal of maximizing the profi[ability of its investment is dependen[ en ilie issuance of an individual Department of the Army permii. However, it is 7 NCSCG-RF (85-284-23) Beure'-Co. beyond my responsibility under Sectio? 404 of the Clean Water Act to assist a private entity in realizing suc6 a profit. Although there may be a private "need" in this case for an investment return of some kind, the applican[ has no[ shown a need for [he substantial profit [hat a?igh[ be obtained if a pezmi[ to fill the 93-acre area were issued. As a fur[her demons[ration ot the applicant's private need for the pro- ject, an affidavit was prepared and submitted on Oc[ober 2, 1985. In this document, Mr. Luther Stalland (the general partner of the applicant) affirmed that the zequirement for a Department of the Arrey permit to fill the property had prevented its sale. This in turn had delayed his divorce proceedings. He also stated that the inability to sell the property represented an especial hardship because he vas counting on the proceeds to liquidate uumerous obliga- tions and to close on his new residence. I find that these statements are not pertinent to the question of the applicant's private need for the proposal. The requirement for an individual Corps permit to fill the property has in no way prevented its sale on the open market. Fur[hermore, I do not think that Mr. Luther Stalland's pereonal financial obligations are germane to the issue of the needs of the applicant, Beure'-Co. If they are germane, he has not provided enough information to shoW that this is the case. Mr. Stalland also states that "project need" is demenstrated by the 3- month waiting list at the other mini-s[orage site in the area. In general, there is no evidence to refute Mr. Stalland's assertion that additional facil- ities of this type may be needed i? [he Eaga? area. (7) Mr. S[alland next addresses at some length Corps responsibili[y to consider practicable alternatives as required by both the Corps regula[ions and those of the EPA. The central point of his argumen[ is tha[ i[ would be too expensive to purchase another site for the project, and ihere is therefore no practicable alternative to the proposal. AESPOhSE: The evaluation of practicable alternatives is made more diffi- cul[ in this case because of the dual nature of the project purpose. The applicant originally applied for a permit to fill so that a mini-warehouse storage facility could be developeO on the larger por[ion of [he site, with the remainder of the site to be used for some unspecified light-industrisl develcpment in the future. This led the St. Paul Dis[rict to believe that the applican['s primary purpose in applying for a fill permit was to develcp the storage facility, and the project was described in those terms in our public notice. The applicant subsequently revesled that its primary interest in filling the property was to make it possible [o comple[e its sale te anether party, who would actually build and operate the facility. Thus, the aprli- cant's purpose in preposing the project is more accurately describeZ as c;Sai- mizing the profitability of ite original land investr.,ent. 8 NCSCO-RF (BS-284-23) Beure'-Co. For the purposes of responding to Mr. Stalland's argument about practi- cable alternatives, I will address both project purposes. With regard to the mini-warehouse storage facility, a non-water dependent activity, the Corps must assume [ha[ there are prac[icable upland alternatives available vr.less it is clearly demonstrated o[herwise (see the EPA's 404(b)(7) guidelines, 40 CFR 230.10(a)(3)). The applicant has not shown ihat 2here are no practica6le alternatives. Such a shoving would require a comparison of the cost and expected return of developing and operating the facility at the project site with the cost and expected zeturn of purchasing another site and develeping and opera[ing the facility there. The applicant has provided no such ansly- sis. I must thecefore continue to assume that practicable alternatives sre available for the mini-stotage facility. With regard to realizing a profit on the ariginal land investment, I must also assume tha[ practicable alternatives exis[. The epplican['s agent has submitted a report from a professional appraiser which states that the value of the property with a Corps permit to fill is $482,500 while i[s value in i[s present state is nothing. He also points out that t6ousands of dollars have been paid in taxes and assessments, in addition to the initial inveetsent ir, the property. His argument, therefore, is that a fiil permit is necessary if the applicant is to obtain any return on its investment at all. The folloc:ing points are made in response to this argument; First, the current assessed market value of the property, as it stands, is $50,600. Whether this figure represen[s the actual amount that could be obtained for the parcel en the open market is cer[ainly arguable. However, it does indicate that the land has some monetary value in its present s[ate; I cannot accept the statenent of the applicant's appraiser that it is literally worth nothing. Second, the appli- cant has already received approximately $67,000 from the State of Minnesota for the portion of the original patcel that was used fer the construction of New Cedar Avenue. The seller of the original parcel has stated that this sum is more than the total paid for the entire property in 1971. Thus it is reasonable to say tha[ with the Corps permit denied, the potential return on the applicant's original investment is equal to $67,000, plus the income frcr., the reinvestment of that sum, less the original purchase price of the psrcel, less the taxes that have been paid, plus the actual sale price of the remain- ing property as it stands. At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient information for me to use this formula to determine the difference in investment return with and withou[ s Department of the Army perrit. ThLs the applican[ has no[ met the burden to shew that the use or sale of the project site in an undevelcped, naturel conditicn would nct censtitute s practicable ano less environmentally damaging al[ernative to the propoee5 filling. Moreover. the applicant has ncC shown tha[ sone other, les< enviroc- mentally damaging develepnent of the site would no[ also cons[itute a pra:t:- cable alternstive. (8) Nr. Stalland states that, in genersl. ". ..[here will be nc hydrelogical prohlem with regzrd to surface and grnund wa[er." 9 NCSGG-RF ( 85-284-23) Beure'-Co. RESPONSE; It does appear at this time that potential problems of this kind could be ovezcome or lessened with appropria[e engineering and censtruc- tion-site safeguards. (9) Mr. Stalland states that "...(g)iven the settling (sic) ef thie project with o[her commercial development nearby, the aesthetic impacts ef this project are de minimus and should not influence your decision on the application." RESPONSE: The evidence gathered during our public interest review shows that the negative aes[hetic impacts of the project are a major concern of local residents. (10) Mr. Stalland asserts that the project site has not been specifi- cally documented as wildlife habitat. RESPONSE; The attached environmental assessmeot documents the site's vildlife hebitai value. (11) Mr. Stalland states that human activity at the site would be mini- mal, citing the brief time spent at the storage space by typical renters. RESPONSE: The cumulative impact of many such renters may well be signi- ficent. Also, there would presumably be additional impacts of this kind following the development of that portion of the site not used as a storage facility. (12) Mr. Stalland asserts that the Corps must consider in its public interest review a property owner's zight to decide how to use the property in an economically viable way. RESPONSE; As required by Corps permit regulsticns, property ownership has been considered as one of the factors in [he St. Paul District's public interest review of this applicatien. It should be remembered [hat a property owner's right to the use of property has traditionally been subject to reasonable government regulaticn. Typical examples of such regulations are state and Federal environmental rules and local zoning ordinances. In this caseg my responsibilities under the Clean kater Act require me to cer.sider t11 factors of the public interes[ befere reaching a decision o? the perrit. (13) Nr. Stalland argues that the relative value of this wetland is s1igF.t wher. [he abundance of similzr wetlands in the area is considered. Fe also stresses tha[ the Corps has authorized filling for similar purpcses in similsr wetlands in the pas[. Finally, he asserts that the proposed dischsrco will not cause or con[ribu[e to significant degrzdation; the impacts roulc bc ainor. 10 NCSCO-RF (85-284-23) Beure'-Co. RESPONSE; The relative value of the wettand is documented in the attached environmental assessment. Although i[ falls under the broad category of a type II/VI wetland complex, it is more precisely identified as a cal- careous fen remnant containing rare and threatened plants. Calcareous fens are the rarest vetland plant communities i? Minnesota and represent one of the rarest wetland types in the nation. As indicated above, Mr. S[alland for- warded to the District a copy of a September 26, 1985, MDNR letter affirming the state's willingness to permit the taking of threatened and endangered plants on the property. Issuance of the permit would be contingen[ on the successful transfer of a portion of the wetland complex to the state as a gift. Mr. Stalland apparently intended to demonstrate by [his document that the relative value and rarity of the wetland was no longer an issue. I[ mus[, however, be pointed out t4at the MDNR letter emphasized tha[ the proposed permi[ represen[ed a compromiae; the cta[e`s preferred plan-at-action vould be to see that the entire project area be left undisturbed so that the habitsts of the plants in question wovld not be destroyed. It is thus clear that, ahatever the considerations that may have promp[ed the MDNR to reach such a compromise, the wetland is still deemed especially valuable by the stete. Moreover, calcareous fens are also rare from a national perspective. There- fore, the state's proposed action notwithstanding, I find that the proposed filling of this valua6le wetland acreage vould represent a significant degra- da[ion of the aqua[ic envizonment. The other projects Mr. Stalland meations were apparently not subject to individual-permit review by the S[. Paul District, having been carried out before Corps regulatory jurisdiction existed at the sites or at a tiwe when they were authorized by a na[ionwide (blanket) permit. Corps permit regula- tions, policies, and procedures (especially in Minnesota) have evolved consi- derably cver the last several years. Beure'-Co.'s proposed fill is now sub- jec[ to a full individual permit review under existing St. Paul District regional conditions to the nationwide permit. Mr. Stalland's list of other projects has been forwarded to our Surveillance and Enforcement Section; appropriate action will be taken if it is determined that unavthorized work was carried out. The impscts of Beure'-Co.'s project would not be minor. The project would totally and permanently destrcy over nine acres of vslua6le wetland. Not only is this significant in itself, but the potential cumulative impac[ ef authorizivg such e fill is also ao important consideration. Such authoriza- tion would se[ a precedent tha[ could lead to the subsequent authorizaticr. c: similarly harmful projects in the area. Pforeover, Mr. Stalland has ceerlccke:: the applica6ility ef 40 CFR 230.10(c)(I) in discussing the concept of "sign:- ficant degrada[ion." Section (1) specifically refers to the adverse effe:[s of discharges on "special aquatic sites" ([hat is, wetlands), and this prnject would obviousl}• have such an effect. (!'r. Stalland's commen[s on secticns (3? and (4) of this portion of the EPA guidelines have been addressed abcve.) ]I NCSCO-FF (85-2E4-23) Beure'-Co. (14) Mr. Stalland's tinal argument is that the Corps must compensate 6eure'Co. for the loss of a reasonable use of the property if the permit is denied. RESPDNISE: The applicant has not shown that there are no reasonable alternative uses for the property [hat do not require filling. In any case, there is no provision in the Clean kater Act, Corps or EPA regulations, or current Corps policy for compensation to be made to an applicart whose permit applicatien has been deoied. 5. OTHER ALTHORI2ATIONS REOUIRED The Lower Minnesota River k'atershed District requires a permit for the pro- ject, which was granted on January 9, 1985. The City of Eagan requires preliminary and final plat approval for the pro- ject; the former has been granted but not the latter. The city has stated that before final plat approval. all environmental issues must be addressed. The city noted that preliminary plat approval vas based on existing zoning, which dates from 1960, and that it is highly unlikely [hat the site would be zoned industrial today, given the environmental issues that have been raised. This discharge of fill material requires certification from the MPCA under Section kDl of the Clean Water Act. On May 29, 1965 the MPCA sent a Ietter on water-quality certification. The agency asked that the let[er 6e entered inte the record of the May 20, 1985, public hearing. Tne MPGA cooditionaily waived water-quality certification. The waiver was contingent upon specific condi- tions being included in any permit that might be issued. These conditions related to the maintenance of water quality at the si[e, particularly the preservation of Harnack Creek as a cool-water trout fishery. Bowever, the letter also admonished the Corps to weigh carefully yZl pertinent factors of the public interest before making a decision on the permit. 6. V3EWS OF THE DISTRIC_T ENGINEER-Oh ENVILQ@MJLTAL EZFE?U OF THE PROJECT 5ee the at[ached environmental assessment. 7. B I AND PRIVATE NEED See the discussicn under 4. above. E. &LIJRtiATIL'ES TO TNE PROJ_L?T The applicant has no[ demons[rated tha[ no feasible al[eroative is availabie. See the discussior, under 4. above. 12 NCSCO-6F (85-264-23) Beure'-Co. 9. CONFORMlTY WITH GUIDEL NE F0R THED1S.CHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL a. The wetland involved is an important ve[land as defined in 33 CFk 320.4(b)(2) because it serves important natural biological functions, inclu- ding food chain production, general habitat, and nesting, spawning, rearing and res[ing sites for aquatic or 2and species; is a wetland the destruction or alteration of which would affect detrimentally natural drainage characteris- tics, sedimen[ation patterns, salinity distribution, flushing characteristics, current patterns, or other environmental characteristice; and serves to purify water through natural filtration processes. b. The evsluation of this application has alsc iocluded consideraticn of the following criteria set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Title 40, CFR, Part 230. No discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less ad- verse impact on the equatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does no[ have other significant adverse environmental consequences. An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall projec[ purposes. If it is otherwise e practicable alter- native, an area no2 presently owned by the applicant which could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may be considered. Where the activity associated with a discharge does not require access or proximity to or siting vithin the special aquatic site in qvestion to fulfill its basic purpose (i.e., is not "water dependent"), practicable alternatives that do not involve special aqua[ic sites are presumed to be available, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise. In addition, where a discharge is proposed for a special aquatic site, all practicable alternatives to the propesed discharge which do not involve a discharge into a special aquatic site are presumed to have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, unless clearly demons[rated otherwise. No discharge of dredged or fill material will be permit[ed which will have significantly adverse effects on human hezltti er welfsre, includir.c b?:t not limited to effects on municipal water supplies, plank2en, fish, shellfi<;-„ wildlife, and specizl aquatic si[es. No discharge of dredged or fill material will be permitted which a•i71 have significantly adverse effects on aquatic ecosys[em diversity, preduc- tivity, and stability. Such effec.s may include, but sre not limiYzd to, of fish and wildlife habitat or loss of the capacity of a wetland tc assiri- late nutrients, purify water, or reduce wave energy. 13 NCSCO-RF (BS-284-23) Beure'-Co. No discharge of dredged or fill material will be permitted which will have significan[ly adverse effects o? recreational, aesthetic, and ecenoc.ic values. No discharge of dredged or fill material will 6e permi[ted unless appro- pziate and practicable s[eps have been taken which will minimize potentisl adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem. The project does not conform wiih these guidelines for reasons discussed in Section 11 below. 10. CORPS PERtIT ACTIDN ALTERNATIVES a. Issuance of the permit as requested. b. Issuance of the permit with modifications. c. Issuance of the permit with special conditions and/or mitigation requirements. d. Denial of the permit. 11. FINDINGS I find that I must deny the permit as requested because it is contrary to the pu6lic interest as discussed in 33 CFk 320.4. I have concluded that the benefits of the project do not outweigh its detriments. Many of the specific reasons for the denial have been discussed in some detail above, especially in my response to the axguments of Mr. Stalland, the applicant's agent. For instance, a public need for the project has not been demonstrated; in fact, the let[ers and testimony in the permit file show that the genetal public regards the preservation of the site in its present state as more desirable than its development. Although there may be a need for more mir,i-warehouse storage space in the Eagan area, the applicani has not ehown tha[ snch facili- ties cannot be built elsewhere. As an example, the appraiser's repert sub- mitted by Mr. S[alland shows that a new facility of this kind is being devel- oped at the present time on upland near Lexington Avenue South and HighGay 55. T6e complex issue of the applicant's private "need" for the projec[ has also been discussed above. In general, my responsibilities under Secticn 40- of the Clean Water Ac[ do not require me to insure the financial success of a speculative land inveetment. Corps regulatiens require me [o cor.sider the extent and permanence of thc beneficial anZ/or detrimental effects which the proposed werk may have en tne puhlic and private uses to which the area is sui[ed. The applicant relies primarily en the existing zoning of the site to prove [hat it is suiteo frr the [ype of development considered. There is ample evidence in the file cc show [het this 25-year-old zoning designation does not necessarily reflect tFc current wishes of the local communi[y regarding the appropria[e use of [t?e- project site. Moreever, Corps regulations specify that [here may be sigci::- cant issues of national impor[ance tF2t would override existing zonirc detcr- 14 NCSCO-RF (85-284-23) Bevre'-Co. minations. Such an issue is the preserva[ion of wetlands. I find that the preservation of this rare and valuable wetland does indeed outweigh the negli- gible public benefits tha[ the project might provide, as well ae the private financial benefits that might accrue to the applicant were the wetland [o be f il led . As noted above. I have also considered the cumulative effects of author- izing the proposed fill. The applicant's agent himself has pointed out that Eagan is the fastest growing community in the metropolitan area and that there is likely to be future pressure to develop ather vetland areas in the vicinity ot the project site. Authorizing this proposal could therefore set a prece- dent that might lead to the destruction of similar wetlands in the area. As required by Corps regulations, I must slso apply the EPA's eectio? 404(b)(I) guidelines vhen evaluating a project involviog the el[eration of vetlands. Because this project is not a water-dependent activity, I must essume that there are practica6le alternatives that do not require the filling of wetlands, unless the applican[ clearly demonstrates otherwise. As dis- cussed above, the applicant has not demonstrated the unavailability of practi- cable alternatives. and I am therefore required to deny the permit. Furthermore, I am required under the 404(b)(1) guidelines to deny a permit where the proposed discharge will result in significant degradation of the aquatic ecosys[em. This proposal would completely destzoy 2.02 acres ef a 3.05-acre calcareous ten. The remaioing 1.03 acres of fen would be, aestheti- cally and physically, severely degraded. Another 7 acres of buffer we[lands [o the fen would be destroyed by filling. The rari[y and importance of the nation's calcareous fens is documented in the attached environmental assess- ment. The destruction of this rare wetland represents a significant degrada- tion of the aquatic ecosystem, and the permit must be denied. In summary. I find that while this project would satisfy a priva[e finan- cial gosl, it would provide li[tle public benefit; it vould permanently de- prive the public of a rare and valuable natural resource and could lead to the destruction of other wetlands in the future. Therefore, I do not believe that issuing this permit would be in the public interest. In addi[ion, the preject fails to comply with the EPA's 404(b)(1) guidelines for the sFecification of disposal sites for dredged or fill material. For all these reasons, I find that I must deny the permit. This permit action e:ill not significantly affect the quality of the hur.:er, environment; therefore, a Federal environmen[al impact statenent is nct re- quired. 1 Incl JOSE?A)BRlIGG5 • Environmen[al Assessment . Colonel, Corps of En-ineers - Dis[rict Engineer 15