The URL can be used to link to this page

3. Dorsey/Fox Wetland Exemption Appeals CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Markel Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952,227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952,227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952,227.1125 Fax 952.227.1110 Web Site WIfW.ci ,chanhassen, mn.us J ~ MEMORANDUM TO: . Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator DA TE: August 27, 2007 SUBJ: Dorsey and Fox Wetland Exemption Appeals O~ REQUESTED ACTIONS The City Council should: 1. Hold a public hearing on the appeals of the staff decisions on the Dorsey and Fox wetland exemptions; and 2. Make decisions regarding the appeals of the staff decisions regarding the exemptions. Any City Council decision regarding these appeals requires a majority of City Council present. SUMMARY Wetland exemption requests were submitted in February 2007 by Dorsey & Dorsey, represented by Rick Dorsey, and Jeff & Terri Fox. City staff reviewed the requests and supporting information and following the receipt and review of the Findings of Fact of the Technical Evaluation Panel, rendered a decision on each of the exemption requests [five (5) total: four (4) on the Dorsey & Dorsey property and one (1) on the Fox property]. Both parties appealed staff's decisions to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), which remanded the appeals to the City. The City must complete its local appeals process, which includes a public hearing before the City Council and decisions by the City Council. Staff recommends that the City Council uphold staff's decisions on allfive (5) exemptions and affinn the Findings of the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). MINNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT In 1991, the State of Minnesota passed the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), which regulates the draining and filling of wetlands within the state. Acti vi ties that would otherwise be subject to the requirements of the WCA may be exempted in certain situations. The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Dorsey & Fox Wetland Exemption Appeals August 27, 2007 Page 2 The implementation of the WCA is regulated by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). The WCA is implemented locally by governmental agencies such as cities, counties or watershed districts. The agency assuming responsibility for the WCA is called the "Local Government Unit," or "LGU." The City of Chanhassen is the LGU within its boundaries. The City makes exemption, no-loss, and type and boundary determinations at the stafflevel, but requires City Council decisions on wetland impact, replacement and banking applications, as well as appeals. The City has its own wetland regulations (Article VI of Chapter 20 of Chanhassen City Code), which are administered concurrently with the WCA. The more restrictive always applies. Generally, the City Code is more stringent than the WCA. One example applies to this case. The WCA (Minnesota Rule 8420.0210) states that "An exemption may apply whether or not the local government unit has made an exemption determination." However, Chanhassen City Code Section 20-417 (a) states that "Activities exempted by Minnesota Rule 8420.0122 or determined to result in no net loss of wetlands shall be exempted from the provisions of this ordinance. However, certificates of exemption or no loss must be obtained from the city prior to starting wor~' (emphasis added). EXEMPTION APPLICATIONS Wetland exemption requests were submitted in February 2007 by Dorsey & Dorsey, represented by Rick Dorsey, and Jeff & Terri Fox. There were 5 total exemption requests: four (4) on the Dorsey & Dorsey property and one (l) on the Fox property. \. ptU.,... Dorsey & Fox Wetland Exemption Appeals August 27, 2007 Page 3 Dorsey & Dorsey Application The applicant requested an exemption determination for four (4) basins on the Dorsey & Dorsey property, located in the NW~ of the SW~ of Section 23, Township 116N, Range 23W, Carver County, Minnesota. For all four basins, the applicant requested exemptions under MR 8420.0122, subpart lA, which states: "A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in a wetland that was planted with annually seeded crops or was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991. Documentation, such as aerial photographs, United States Department of Agriculture records, or affidavit of landowner must be required by the local government unit to show and use as evidence for this exemption. Land eligible for this exemption must be wetland types 1 and 2. " The LGU decision dated April 6, 2007, reflected the following: . Basin 1: Exemption request denied. The wetland was not an annually seeded crop or in a rotation of pasture grass or legumes. Also, a portion of this wetland is not type 1 or type 2 wetland. . Basin 2: Exemption request approved. The area was annually seeded with crops from 1981 through 1986 and is a type 1 wetland. . Basin 3: Exemption request denied. The wetland was not an annually seeded crop or in a rotation of pasture grass or legumes. . Basin 4: Exemption request approved. The area was annually seeded with crops six often years prior to 1991 and is a type 1 or type 2 wetland. . All exempt wetlands will be subject to the IO-year deed recording requirements set forth in MR 8420.0115. The appeal submitted on behalf of Rick Dorsey on May 4, 2007, makes nineteen (19) allegations. The allegations are listed below in bold with the TEP response [as formulated on June 26,2007 by Brad Wozney (Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources), Greg Graczyk (Carver Soil and Water Conservation District) and Lori Haak (City of Chanhassen)] shown in plain type. 1. Rick Dorsey appeals the determination of the City of Chanhassen under the Wetland Conservation Act, as contained in the April 6, 2007, letter and Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision and TEP Findings of Fact by Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator, City of Chanhassen. No response. Dorsey & Fox Wetland Exemption Appeals August 27, 2007 Page 4 2. The City of Chanhassen is the Local Government Unit (LGU) implementing the Wetland Conservation Act in Carver County, Minnesota. No response. 3. Dorsey's exemption request was heard concurrently with an exemption request by adjoining landowner Fox. The two cases have issues in common. No response. 4. The decision is contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence. The decision maker applied the wrong standard of proof, applying a standard that required conclusive proof. The staff decision was based on the Findings of Fact prepared by the Technical Evaluation (TEP) Panel consistent with state law and rules regarding wetland activities. The landowners' affidavits and other evidence were fully evaluated and the TEP Findings indicated that aerial photographs did not support the applicants' contentions. 5. Rick Dorsey is a General Partner of Dorsey and Dorsey who is the owner of real property located in the NW~ of SW~ of Section 23, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota. Street Address: 1551 Lyman Blvd (PID 250230400). No response. 6. On or about February 5, 2007, Rick Dorsey submitted an application for approval of a wetland project. Dorsey applied for an exemption determination for four areas designated as Sites 1-4 respectively. The purpose of the exemption request was to obtain declaratory determination establishing that the sites were exempt in 1991 and that they remain exempt. The evidence was presented at a meeting, lasting approximately one hour. The evidence showed that the sites were already exempt, were former wetlands, all of which have been drained, excavated and/or filled as of passage of WCA. The Findings of the TEP and the staff decision differ from the applicant's interpretation of the rule and the interpretation ofthe evidence presented. The four (4) basins were not automatically exempt in 1991. Pursuant to city ordinance, any decision made regarding an exemption must be made only after application. Additionally, although Dorsey & Fox Wetland Exemption Appeals August 27, 2007 Page 5 evidence was presented at the aforementioned meeting, the TEP did not make a decision at that time regarding the evidence that was presented. 7. The decision regarding the two areas designated as Site 2 and Site 4 are impacted by the same legal error. The evidence established that prior to 1987, site 2 and 4 met the criteria for WCA exemption lA. Specifically, the land was used for row crops. Minn. Stat. ~103G.2241 subdivision (IA) part 1. Further, based on available evidence it was determined that during the time period of 1981-1986 the subject areas showed no sign of a wetland or were of type 1 or 2 and, if type 2, were less than 2 acres. Having found that the sites were exempt at that time, however, the LGU incorrectly imposed a ten-year deed restriction dating from the time of the exemption determination, rather than from the date of the existence of the exemption itself. The decision wrongly assumes that the purpose of an exemption determination is to authorize a particular activity as of the date of the exemption request. From this error, the exemption decision determines that the panel should place an agricultural restriction effective after the date of the exemption determination. As a result of this error, the decision wrongly concludes that the applicant must restrict his usage of the property for at least ten years after the date of the decision. Exemptions are self-executing, and the date of the exemption determination is irrelevant for purposes of applying the exemption. The applicant requested an exemption under MR 8420.0122, subpart 1A. No determination has been made by the TEP with respect to subpart 1D for these four (4) basins. The TEP disagrees that exemptions apply from the time of the passage of the Act. The wetland itself is not exempted by the law, but rather activities are exempt. MR 8420.0115 requires the 10- year deed recording at the time of the proposed exempt activity is certified by the LOU. The TEP did not find that the sites were exempt 1981-1986. The evidence submitted does not show that the activities prior to 1991 were sufficient to make the areas non-wetland. Pursuant to City Code Section 20-406, the City as LOU requires application for exemptions. 8. With respect to Site #3, the evidence showed that a wetland of some kind may have existed on this site prior to 1981. During that time, the area was fenced and used as pasture for dairy cows. The County then in 1981, widened Lyman Boulevard and lawfully used this area for clean nIl arising from the road construction. The road project created a new clean swale along the 20-foot high road embankment. In 1981 - 1982 the site was reseeded and used as pasture. In 1983, after the balance of lowland was filled with soil hauled in from Dorsey & Fox Wetland Exemption Appeals August 27, 2007 Page 6 another City project, the south portion of the former wetland was planted in soybeans and the north half reseeded in pasture grass (hay) which was mechanically harvested and sold through 1988. Thus, at the time WCA was passed, there was no wetland and the land would have been exempt as of the date that WCA became effective. The TEP Panel wrongly focused on an artificial wet area which developed along the road ditch. The decision that Site #3 is not exempt is arbitrary and capricious, unlawful, and contrary to the evidence. Further, as discussed below, the TEP Panel and LGU applied the wrong standard in evaluating the evidence. The TEP focused on the area that was flagged by the applicant's wetland delineator, Mr. Ben Meyer of Bonestroo and Associates. Best professional judgment and photographic evidence do not support the exemption for Site #3 as detailed in the TEP Findings. 9. With respect to Site 1, the TEP used an on-site visit on March 22, 2007, to determine the size and type of wetland area to be impacted as the basis for its decision to deny the exemption request. This review was irrelevant as it did not review the status of size and type prior to 1991. The type determination for Site 1 was not made on-site on March 22, 2007. The type determination was made using aerial photographs and the wetland type definitions set forth in MR 8420.0110, subp 54a, items A through C. 10. In the relevant time period for exemption determination, there was no wetland on site 1. Within the application, as well as at the predetermination meeting with the TEP Panel, Dorsey and Ben Meyer, a Senior Environmental Consultant with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates representing Dorsey, provided detailed information regarding the issue of wetland size between 1981 and 1989. They showed that the former wetland had been drained and tiled for over thirty years by the time the WCA was enacted. In an aerial photo from 1963, supplied to the TEP panel in the application, one can see the "Y shape" shadow line on the land including the site area. Once again, the TEP asserts that the size and type prior to 1991 are irrelevant. The evidence submitted does not show that the activities prior to 1991 were sufficient to make the areas non-wetland. The TEP disagrees that exemptions apply from the time of the passage of the Act. The wetland itself is not exempted by the law, but rather activities are exempt. Dorsey & Fox Wetland Exemption Appeals August 27, 2007 Page 7 11. Minn. Stat. ~103G.2241, subd. l(a)(l), and Minn. Rules Part 8420.0122, subp. l(a) state that a replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in a wetland that were annually seeded with crops or were in crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in 6 of the most recent 10 years prior to January 1, 1991. Because these lands met that requirement as of January 1, 1991, the panel wrongly looked at the condition of the land as of a later date. City staff disagrees. See response to allegation #7. 12. The site was excavated and wetland soil types were removed, in 1989, with approval from the City of Chanhassen, for reasons described in detain [sic] in the application. The excavation was done to make a man made surface water management pond. The plan approved by the City, and of public record, included a survey and topographical map (the application included a copy of said documents) which surveyed the former wetland area in site #1. At that time the high-water ponding area from the incidental pond starting to form as a result of a blocked ditch discussed in the application. Scaling it out, the size is less than 0.7 acres in total. Under exemption lA, the determination is based on pre-existing land use to the WCA enactment, not current time use. For this reason, the size and type of wetland are to be based on what was there pre 1991, using historical data.." [sic] The Owner provided the TEP Panel with a survey and topographical map submitted to the City of Chanhassen in 1989 and accepted in the public record as part of an excavation permit for the site. It shows the size of the historic wetland on site #1 had been between 0.6 and 0.7 acres. The hydric soils, in the approximately 0.7-acre site which were already drain tiled but blocked, were excavated in 1989 with the hydric soils removed from the site, and the depression left as a man made surface water management pond, for reasons described in detail in the application. A storm water management pond was created after the wetland soil types were removed from the site. With respect to the applicant's exemption request, the purpose of the pond excavation is irrelevant. However, the TEP disagrees regarding the purpose of the pond. The staff report for the wetland alteration permit (application number 88-16) states that, "The applicants have met with staff to discuss the creation of a wildlife pond on their property. J 0 Ann Olsen met with Dr. Elizabeth Rockwell of the Fish and Wildlife Service on site. Dr. Rockwell felt that construction of the pond in the wetland would be beneficial if the standard six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife service were followed." The size and type of wetland discussed Dorsey & Fox Wetland Exemption Appeals August 27, 2007 Page 8 in the wetland alteration permit application are irrelevant because a formal wetland delineation was not completed as part of the application. Additionally, the project proposed an excavation of approximately four (4) feet within the wetland (from an elevation of approximately 889 to a bottom elevation of approximately 885). This would result in a wetland type change (from a waterlogged to a standing water condition), not a conversion to non-wetland. 13. Site #1 has been draintiled and farmed for more than 23 years prior to 1986. As a former wetland through and including 1986 it would not be type-able because it was not a wetland. In 1987-1988 when water started to puddle into the growing season, it was incidental to ditch blockage on neighboring property. Any wet ground on the site today is not a natural wetland: it is a man made storm pond that is now overflowing without an emergency overflow. (The increase in the storm pond size since 1989 is due to surface water drainage blocked on neighboring property and seepage of the storm pond saturating a buffer area). Neither of which was intended to create wetlands when the pond was created. The aerial photographs that were submitted show the area was wetland prior to 1986 and that the wetland existed prior to excavation and following excavation. 14. Even ifthere had been a wetland at the relevant time period, it still would have been in error to deny the exemption, because the land was devoted to exempt agricultural uses. Evidently the panel misconstrued the meaning of the terms crop, pasture grass, and legumes, and misconstrued the meaning of the subdivision l(a)(I) exemption. The TEP did not misconstrue the meaning of these terms nor of the requested exemption. (The exemption cited in allegation #14 does not exist. ) 15. "Hayland" is dermed as an area that was mechanically harvested or that was planted with annually seeded crops in a crop rotation seeding of grasses or legumes in six of the last ten years. Minn. Stat. ~103G.005, subd. 10(c); Minn. Rules Part 8420.0110, subp. 20. So noted. The term "hayland" does not appear in MR 8420.0122, subpart 1 A. Dorsey & Fox Wetland Exemption Appeals August 27, 2007 Page 9 16. "Agricultural land" is defined as land used for horticultural, row, close grown, pasture and hayland crops. Minn. Stat. ~103G.005, subd. 2(a); Minn. Rules Part 8420.0110, subp. 4. So noted. The term "agricultural land" does not appear in MR 8420.0122, subpart 1A. 17. The statute, rules and SONAR support a plain reading of the exemption requested by Dorsey. City staff and the TEP properly and fairly interpreted the exemption request by Dorsey and properly and fairly applied the statute, rules and SONAR in reaching their recommendations and decisions. 18. A crop is any plant that is grown in significant quantities to be harvested as food, livestock fodder, or for another economic purpose. Pasture is land with herbaceous vegetation cover used for grazing of livestock as part of a farm or ranch. The key difference between pasture and crop is that a crop is harvested for use away from the specific location that it is grown, whereas with pasture, an animal grazes and consumes the plant as it is growing. A legume is a plant in the family Fabaceae (or Leguminosae), or a fruit of these plants. Well-known legumes include alfalfa, clover, peas, beans, lentils, lupins and peanuts. The terms "annually seeded" and "rotation" are significant in the application ofMR 8420.0122, subpart 1A. The term "pasture" does not appear except as a modifier for the term "grass," therefore this differentiation is not significant. 19. The record in this case consists of a variety of documents, maps, and other submissions to the LGU and TEP as well as approximately one hour of testimony presented to the panel. It appears based on the decision of the panel that this testimony was not considered as a result of the panel's erroneous belief that an exemption can only be granted upon conclusive photographic evidence. No recording or minutes were taken during the meeting between the applicant, Mr. Ben Meyer and the TEP, so it is unclear how this "testimony" can be part of the record in this case. All information presented or submitted was considered by the TEP in its decisions, including the applicant's testimony and affidavits, and the TEP findings and staff decision were not based on the alleged erroneous belief but rather on a full and complete consideration of evidence both supporting and contradicting the exemption determination. Dorsey & Fox Wetland Exemption Appeals August 27, 2007 Page 10 Fox Application The applicant requested an exemption determination for one (1) basin on the Jeff & Terri Fox property, located in the NE~ ofthe SW~ of Section 23, Township 116N, Range 23W, Carver County, Minnesota. For this basin, the applicant requested an exemption under MR 8420.0122, subpart 1D, which states: A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in a type 1 wetland on agricultural land, except for bottomland hardwood type 1 wetlands, and activities in a type 2 or type 6 wetland that is less than two acres in size and located on agricultural land. The LGU decision dated April 6, 2007 reflected the following: . Basin 1: Exemption request denied. The wetland is a type 3 wetland with a type 2 fringe that is more than 2 acres in size. The entire wetland basin is approximately 3.3 acres in size. The appeal submitted on behalf of Jeff and Terri Fox on May 4,2007, makes nine (9) allegations. The allegations are listed below in bold with the TEP response [as formulated on June 26, 2007 by Brad W ozney (Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources), Greg Graczyk (Carver Soil and Water Conservation District) and Lori Haak (City ofChanhassen)] shown in plain type. 1. Jeff and Terri Fox appeal the determination of the City of Chanhassen under the Wetland Conservation Act, as contained in the April 6, 2007, letter and Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision and TEP Findings of Fact by Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator, City of Chanhassen. No response. 2. The City of Chanhassen is the Local Government Unit (LGU) implementing the Wetland Conservation Act in Carver County, Minnesota. No response. 3. The decision is contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence. The decision maker applied the wrong standard of proof, applying a standard that required conclusive proof. Dorsey & Fox Wetland Exemption Appeals August 27, 2007 Page 11 The staff decision was based on the Findings of Fact prepared by the Technical Evaluation (TEP) Panel consistent with state law and rules regarding wetland activities. The landowners' affidavits and other evidence were fully evaluated and the TEP Findings indicated that aerial photographs did not support the applicants' contentions. 4. Jeff and Terri Fox are owners of real property located in the NE~ of SWY-i of Section 23, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota. Street Address: 1551 Lyman Blvd (PID 250230500). No response. 5. On or about January 25, 2007, Jeff and Terri Fox submitted an application for approval to fill so as to utilize type 1 wetlands for the purpose of agricultural production utilizing standard farming practices and machinery. The application was submitted on February 20,2007. 6. The property for which Jeff and Terri Fox are seeking a Wetland Conservation Act exemption was at most a Type 1 Wetland entitled to an exemption declaration. At the hearing, appellant presented evidence from a competent expert, Ben Meyer, a Senior Environmental Consultant with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, that the property in question was a former Type 1 exempt wetland. The panel visited the site on March 22, 2007, at a time that the ground was frozen. A record snow (approximately 30 inches) had recently fallen and then melted in about eight days just prior to the review, causing flood waters to pond on the frozen ground. The type determination for Basin 1 was not made on-site on March 22, 2007. The type determination was made using aerial photographs and the wetland type definitions set forth in MR 8420.0110, subp 54a, items A through C. 7. The Panel erroneously failed to recognize that a storm pond in the area on neighboring property is man made and not a type 2 and 3 wetland. Further, the Panel failed to take into account that the size of the wetland on the site is, historically, significantly smaller. The area of wet ground has expanded because a drainage ditch had been driven over by farm machinery and collapsed, blocking drainage and forcing surface water to redirect itself across a larger area to re- enter the drainage ditch at a lower elevation (as such, incidental water has been included in the TEP Panel determination). Dorsey & Fox Wetland Exemption Appeals August 27,2007 Page 12 The TEP disagrees regarding the purpose of the pond. The staff report for the wetland alteration permit on the neighboring (Dorsey & Dorsey) property (application number 88-16) states that, "The applicants have met with staff to discuss the creation of a wildlife pond on their property. Jo Ann Olsen met with Dr. Elizabeth Rockwell of the Fish and Wildlife Service on site. Dr. Rockwell felt that construction of the pond in the wetland would be beneficial if the standard six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife service were followed." In light of this information, the open water area is a wetland, not a stormwater pond. No determination regarding incidental wetland was requested by the applicant or made by the TEP. 8. The decision fails to set out findings of fact which support a rmding that there is a type 3 wetland. The decision merely checks a box which provides insufficient explanation for administrative or judicial review. It fails to demonstrate that the panel applied the correct standards or law or that it took a hard look at the evidence in light of the applicable law. It is impossible from the hearing decision to determine whether the panel applied the correct standards, or what evidence the panel considered, or whether the panel was reviewing evidence as of the appropriate time. The TEP employed best professional judgment, the Circular 39 definitions of wetland types (as set forth in the online version of Shaw and Fredine's "Wetlands of the United States - their extent and their value to waterfowl and other wildlife," version 05JAN99, and summarized in MR 8420.0110, subp 54a, items A through C), the grading plan for the wetland alteration permit on the neighboring (Dorsey & Dorsey) property (application number 88-16), and aerial photography to make the wetland typing determination. 9. As more fully explained in the Dorsey appeal, a copy of which is appended to this appeal, the record in this case consists of a variety of documents, maps, and other submissions to the LGU and TEP as well as approximately one hour of testimony presented to the panel and done in conjunction with the Dorsey case. It appears based upon the decision of the panel in the accompanying Dorsey case that in addition, the panel was applying the wrong burden of proof and that it believed that an exemption can only be granted upon conclusive photographic evidence. No recording or minutes were taken during the meeting between Mr. Ben Meyer, Mr. Rick Dorsey and the TEP, so it is unclear how this "testimony" can be part of the record in this case. All information presented or submitted was considered by the TEP in its decisions. Dorsey & Fox Wetland Exemption Appeals August 27, 2007 Page 13 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Hold a public hearing, 2) Consider all testimony and evidence; and 3) Adopt a motion upholding staffs decisions on all five (5) exemptions, and affirming the Findings of the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). RECOMMENDED MOTION The Chanhassen City Council upholds staffs decisions on all five (5) exemptions, and affirming the Findings of the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact 2. Fox/Dorsey Wetland Exemption Appeal Location Map 3. Affidavit of Publication reo Appeals of Dorsey & Dorsey and Jeff and Terri Fox, dated June 28, 2007 4. Order, Remand of Wetland Conservation Act Appeal of Dorsey & Dorsey, dated June 6, 2007 5. Memorandum from J. Haertel reo Appeal of Dorsey & Dorsey, dated May 9, 2007 6. Letter from G. Von Korffre. Appeal of Dorsey & Dorsey, dated May 4, 2007 7. Appeal of Dorsey & Dorsey, dated May 4, 2007 8. Memorandum from L. Haak, dated April 12, 2007 9. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact for Dorsey Wetland Exemption, dated April 6, 2007 10. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Certificate of Mailing of Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision for Dorsey Wetland Exemption, dated April 6, 2007 11. Letter from L. Haak reo Dorsey & Dorsey Wetland Exemption Application, dated April 6, 2007 12. Letter from L. Haak reo Dorsey & Dorsey Wetland Exemption Application Review Period Extension, dated AprilS, 2007 13. Email from B. Meyer reo Dorsey & Dorsey Wetland Exemption Affidavit of Land Use, dated March 20,2007 14. Email from B. Meyer reo Dorsey & Dorsey Wetland Exemption Aerial Photographs 1981-1986, dated March 12,2007 15. Letter from L. Haak reo Dorsey & Dorsey Wetland Exemption Application Incomplete, dated February 20,2007 16. Letter from B. Meyer reo Dorsey & Dorsey Wetland Exemption Application, dated February 7,2007 Dorsey & Fox Wetland Exemption Appeals August 27,2007 Page 14 17. Email from B. Meyer reo Dorsey & Dorsey Wetland Exemption Determination, dated November 16,2007 - 2:23 pm 18. Email from B. Meyer reo Dorsey & Dorsey Wetland Exemption Determination, dated November 16, 2007 - 8:47 am 19. Excerpts from the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) 20. Staff report for George Dorsey Wetland Alteration Permit (W AP 88-16), dated January 4, 1989 21. Wetland Alteration Permit for George Dorsey Wetland Alteration Permit (W AP 88-16), recorded September 18, 1989 22. Excerpts from "Wetlands ofthe United States: Their Extent and Their Value to Waterfowl and Other Wildlife" by Shaw and Fredine, printed July 12, 2007 23. Order, Remand of Wetland Conservation Act Appeal of Jeff & Terri Fox, dated June 7, 2007 24. Memorandum from J. Haertel reo Appeal of Jeff & Terri Fox, dated May 9, 2007 25. Letter from G. Von Korffre. Appeal of Jeff & Terri Fox, dated May 4,2007 26. Appeal of Jeff & Terri Fox, dated May 4,2007 27. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact for Jeff & Terri Fox Wetland Exemption, dated April 6, 2007 28. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Certificate of Mailing of Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision for Jeff & Terri Fox Wetland Exemption, dated April 6, 2007 29. Letter from L. Haak reo Jeff & Terri Fox Wetland Exemption Application Review Period Extension, dated AprilS, 2007 30. Letter from B. Meyer reo Jeff & Terri Fox Wetland Exemption Application, dated February 20, 2007 31. Aerial photographs 1979-2005 32. Grading plan for George Dorsey Wetland Alteration Permit (W AP 88-16) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACTAND DECISION IN RE: Application of Dorsey & Dorsey and Jeff & Terri Fox, for Wetland Act Appeal of an Exemption Determination. On August 27,2007, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Dorsey & Dorsey (Dorsey), and Jeff & Terri Fox for Wetland Act Appeal of an Exemption Determination. The cases were consolidated for public hearing purposes and shall be similarly joined together in these findings and conclusions. The City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed appeals which was preceded by published notice. The City Council heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Dorsey and Fox properties are currently zoned A2, Agricultural Estate. 2. The properties are guided in the Land Use Plan for Low or Medium Density Residential. 3. The legal descriptions of the property are attached as Exhibit A. 4. The City of Chanhassen is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) implementing the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City. 5. The City makes exemption, no-loss, and type and boundary determinations at the staff level, but requires City Council decisions on wetland impact, replacement and banking applications, as well as appeals. 6. In administering the WCA, the City applies both state law and rules, and applicable city ordinances: the most restrictive applies. 7. The WCA (Minnesota Rule 8420.0210) states that, "An exemption may apply whether or not the local government unit has made an exemption determination." 8. Chanhassen City Code Section 20-417 (a) states that, "Activities exempted by Minnesota Rule 8420.0122 or determined to result in no net loss of wetlands shall be exempted from the provisions of this ordinance. However, certificates of exemption or no loss must be obtained from the city prior to starting work" (emphasis added). 9. The applicants' exemption application was fully evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) and City Staff (see staff report, Item #4, of the August 27, 2007 City Council Agenda prepared by Lori Haak, et aI, which is incorporated herein). 10. The Dorsey application involves four basins and the Fox application involves one basin. 11. With regard to Dorsey, sites 1 and 3, aerial photographs do not show that the area was planted with crops for the period required by the exemption. Aerial photos show sufficient seeding with crops to meet the exemption criteria for Sites 2 and 4. With regard to Sites 2 and 4, recent statutory and rule changes to the WCA (See Chapter 57, 2007 Session Laws and Minn. Rules 8420.0115 and 8420.0122) eliminate the ten-year deed restriction requirement for exemption determinations under 8420.0122, Subpart lA. 1 12. With regard to the Fox site, the wetland is a Type 3 with a Type 2 fringe that is more than 2 acres in size and therefore ineligible for the exemption applied for by the applicant. DECISION The City Council affirms the April 6, 2007 Notice of Decision regarding the Fox and Dorsey properties except for the stated requirement of a recorded deed restriction relating to the exemption determination for Dorsey Sites 2 and 4. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 2ih day of August, 2007. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL BY: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk/Manager 2 EXHIBIT A Dorsey & Dorsey Parcel Number 25-0230400 NW1/4 SW1I4 Section: 23 Township: 116 Range: 023 West, Carver County, Minnesota Jeffrey & Terri Fox Parcel Number 25-0230500 NE1I4 SW1I4 Section: 23 Township: 116 Range: 023 West, Carver County, Minnesota, EXC THAT PIO SHOWN AS PARCEL 64 ON MN DOT R-O-W PLAT 10-19 Fox/Dorsey Wetland Exemption Appeal Location Map C.R. 18) Dorsey Property 'I I Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota} }SS. County of Carver } Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A02, 331A07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. Lf1()~ was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER& HENNEPIN , ' ,COUNTIES , NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .' , 'NOTICE,IS HEREBY GIVEN 'that the ChaiIhassen" City Council will 1101d a,,'public hearing on Monday, July 9; 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd,Thepurpose ofthis hearing is to consider an appeal of a wetland exemption determination on property 10catedintheNorthHalf of Section 23, Township 116N, Range 23W (Southwest corner of Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard). . . Lori Haak, , Water Resources Coordinator , 'Email: lhaak<iilcLchanhassen rim. us Phon~: 952' 227-1135 (Published in the Chanhassen . ... VillageronThutsday,June28,2007; No. 4909) ~~ Laurie A Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on thi,J2~d'Y of ~ 2007 ~/l~j~ Notary Public GWEN M. RADUENZ NOTARY PUBUC - MINNESOTA My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2010 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $40.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter................................ $40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter............................................... $11.89 per column inch . JIiiIl - _ - - ~ta Water&SoiI Resources .~~ June 6, 2007 Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECEIVED JUN 8 - 2007 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Gerald Von Korff Rinke Noonan P.O. Box 1497 St. Cloud, MN 55302-1497 In Re: Order, Remand of Wetland Conservation Act Appeal Dorsey & Dorsey, City of Chanhassen, Carver County, File 07-14 Dear Ms. Haak and Mr. Von Korff: Please find enclosed an Order that remands the Wetland Conservation Act petition for appeal of Dorsey & Dorsey dated May 4, 2007, to appeal the April 6, 2007 Wetland Conservation Act exemption determination, located in the NW ~ ofthe SW ~ of Section 23, T. 116N, R. 23W, City ofChanhassen, Carver County. Local administrative remedies have not been exhausted. The appeal will be held in abeyance pending completion of the administrative proceedings. The proceedings must be completed within 60 days ofthe date of the Order unless the parties mutually agree to an extension of time. Under remand, the City of Chanhassen, as the local government unit administering the Wetland Conservation Act, must conduct a public hearing on the wetland exemption application. The public hearing must be presided over by a panel of at least three members. All persons should be given a full and fair opportunity to speak and submit information. The information may consist of additional or new information that was not previously considered. All documents that are submitted, or relied upon, should be identified on the record at the hearing. The panel must develop an adequate record that considers a written Technical Evaluation Panel report. The decision must include sufficient written findings of fact that support the decision and address any disagreement, ifthere is any, with the Technical Evaluation Panel report. The proceedings ofthe hearing, or hearings, where the wetland exemption application is considered should be tape recorded such that a verbatim transcript could be made available or adequate minutes must Bem kIP Brainerd Duluth FeJ:gus Fa//s Marshall New Vim Rochester 5atid Paul 701 Minnesota A venue 1601 Minnesota Drive 394 S, Lake Avenue 1004 Frontier Trail 1400 E. Lyon Street 261 Highway 15 S, 2300 Silver Creek 520 Lafayette Road N. Suite 234 Brainerd, MN 56401 Room 403 Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Box 267 New Vim, MN 56073 Road N,E, Saint Paul, MN 55155 Bemidji, MN 56601 phone (218) 828-2383 Duluth, MN 55802 phone (218) 736-5445 Marshall, MN 56258 phone (507) 359-6074 Rochester, MN 55906 phone (651) 296-3767 phone (218) 755-4235 fax (218) 828-6036 phone (218) 723-4752 fax (218) 736-7215 phone (507) 537-6060 fax (507) 359-6018 phone (507) 281-7797 fax (651) 297-5615 fax (218) 755-4201 fax (218) 723-4794 fax (507) 537-6368 fax (507) 285-7144 Web: www.bwsr.state.mn.us TTY: (800) 627-3529 An equal opportunity employer @Printed on recycled paper Lori Haak, Gerald Von Korff June 6, 2007 Page 2 be taken. The decision must be noticed in the same manner as any wetland exemption determination. An appeal of the decision can be made. The current appeal is finalized upon the city's decision being made under remand and properly noticed. It is my understanding no panel, board or commission has been previously delegated the authority to decide on Wetland Conservation Act matters such as this. Thus, the City Council would conduct the public hearing and make a final decision on the wetland exemption application. Minn. Rules Parts 8420.0115 and 8420.0122, Subp. lA are the major focus for this appeal. The petition for appeal states: "The decision wrongly assumes that the purpose of an exemption determination is to authorize a particular activity as of the date of the exemptionrequest.". The Scope of Exemption Standards, Minn. Rules Part 8420.0115, sixth paragraph, states in pertinent part: "... can make no use ofthe wetland area after it is drained, excavated, or filled, other than as agricultural land, for ten years after the draining, excavating, or filling, unless it is first replaced ...". The petition for appeal claims wetlands that were exempt in 1991 remain exempt. However, a wetland exemption determination must apply to the circumstances at the time of the wetland exemption application. It appears the decision of city staff was not in error and correctly interpreted application ofthe exemption standards to the conditions at the time the exemption application was made. Similarly, the decision of city staff weighed the evidence, including the landowner's affidavit and interpretation of aerial photography, and concluded the exemption standards were not met. Please feel free to contact me at (651) 297-2906, or at the Saint Paul address, if I may be of further assistance in this matter. SincerelY,O I _V' ~- ufo-- 1b~ . Haertel ater Management Specialist Enclosure Lori Haak, Gerald Von Korff June 6, 2007 Page 3 cc: Greg Graczyk, Carver SWCD DRC Members Tom Overton, AG.O. Doug Norris, DNR-Eco Services BWSR: John Jaschke, Doug Thomas, Dave Weirens, Steve Woods, Lynda Peterson, Brad Wozney Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 In the Matter of the Wetland Conservation Act appeal filed by Gerald Von Korff for Dorsey & Dorsey of an exemption determination, located in the SW lf4 of Section 23, T. 116N, R. 23W, Carver County ORDER REMANDING APPEAL Whereas, a petition dated May 4,2007 was received on May 7, 2007, from Gerald Von Korff, Rinke Noonan, on behalf of Dorsey & Dorsey, c/o Rick Dorsey, to appeal a Wetland Conservation Act exemption determination made by the City of Chanhassen Water Resources Coordinator on April 6, 2007, located in the NW lf4 of the S W lf4 of Section 23, T. 116N, R. 23W, City ofChanhassen, Carver County, and; Whereas, the City of Chanhassen is the local government unit administering the Wetland Conservation Act, and; Whereas, a Wetland Conservation Act wetland exemption application was made by Dorsey & Dorsey on February 5,2007, and; Whereas, the Wetland Conservation Act exemption determination made on April 6, 2007 by the City of Chanhassen Water Resources Coordinator was to deny the wetland exemption application for Sites 1 and 3 and to approve the wetland exemption application for Sites 2 and 4, and; Whereas, the Wetland Conservation Act, Minn. Stat. ~~ 14.06, 103B.101, 103B.3355, 103G.2242 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420.0250, Subp. 3 require a petition for appeal not be granted when the petitioner has not exhausted all local administrative remedies and allows a petition for appeal to be remanded to the local government unit when the petitioner has not exhausted all local administrative remedies such as a local government unit public hearing, and; Whereas, effective on May 9,2007, after the April 6, 2007 exemption determination and after the May 4,2007 petition for appeal, the Wetland Conservation Act, Minn. Stat. ~ 103G.2242, Subd. 2a (d) was revised to require appeals of decisions made by designated local government staff to be made to the local government unit, and; Whereas, the City ofChanhassen Wetland Conservation Act exemption determination made on April 6, 2007 was made by a staff individual and no public hearing was held prior to the decision on the wetland exemption application, and; Whereas; to qualify for the wetland exemption applied for, the application must contain sufficient evidence to support approval of the wetland exemption application; Now Therefore, the Board makes the following Order. ORDER The Board hereby remands to the City of Chanhassen the Wetland Conservation Act petition for appeal of Gerald Von Korff, Rinke Noonan, on behalf of Dorsey & Dorsey, c/o Rick Dorsey, to appeal a Wetland Conservation Act exemption determination made by the City of Chanhassen Water Resources Coordinator on April 6, 2007, located in the NW Y4 of the SW Y4 of Section 23, T. 116N, R. 23W, City ofChanhassen, Carver County, to conduct a public hearing on the wetland exemption application, to develop an adequate record that considers a written Technical Evaluation Panel Report and includes written findings of fact that support the decision and address any disagreement with the Technical Evaluation Panel Report, to tape record the hearing such thata verbatim transcript can be made or adequate minutes taken, and to notice the decision as required by the Wetland Conservation Act; pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~ 103G.2242, Subd. 9 and Minn. Rules Chapter 8420.0250, Subp. 3. Under remand, the decision must be made within 60 days of the date of this order unless the parties mutually agree to an extension of time. Under remand, the appeal will be held in abeyance. Dated at Saint Paul, Minnesota this I~ \0 day of June, 2007. MINNESOTA BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES By: ~~ ~ - ?i:O^-lc- John G. aschke, ExecutI e DIrector Ii? jIIiIl - - - - Min fa =Soil Resources ~~ MEMORANDUM May 9, 2007 TO: DRC: Randy Kramer, Kay Cook, Louise Smallidge, Paul Brutlag, Quentin Fairbanks Tom Overton, A.G.O. D:U.g ~OQj D~rvices (J\-/ {b ~l1J ~Haertel' Water Management Specialist PH: (651) 297-2906 In Re: WCA Appeal of an Exemption Determination City ofChanhassen, Carver County, File 07-14 Please find enclosed a copy of the above referenced petition in which a wetland exemption determination is being appealed. The appeal regards the denial of a wetland exemption application on land used, or sometimes used, for agricultural purposes. Please contact me if you have any comments or questions. Enclosure cc: Lori Haak, City of Chanhassen Greg Graczyk, Carver SWCD Christie Eller, A.G.O. BWSR: John Jaschke, Doug Thomas, Dave Weirens, Steve Woods, Brad Wozney Bemit!Ji Brainerd Duluth Fergus Falls Marshall New Vim Rochester Saint Paul 701 Minnesota Avenue 1601 Minnesota Drive 394 S. Lake Avenue 1004 Frontier Trail 1400 E. Lyon Street 261 Highway 15 S. 2300 Silver Creek 520 Lafayette Road N. Suite 234 Brainerd. MN 56401 Room 403 Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Box 267 New DIm, MN 56073 Road N.E. Saint Paul, MN 55155 Bemidji. MN 56601 phone (218) 828-2383 Duluth, MN 55802 phone (218) 736-5445 Marshall, MN 56258 phone (507) 359-6074 Rochester, MN 55906 phone (651) 296-3767 phone (218) 755-4235 fax (218) 828-6036 phone (218) 723-4752 fax (218) 736-7215 phone (507) 537-6060 fax (507) 359-6018 phone (507) 281-7797 fax (651) 297-5615 fax (218) 755-4201 fax (218) 723-4794 fax (507) 537-6368 fax (507) 285-7144 Web: www.bwsr.state.mn.us TTY: (800) 627-3529 An equal opportunity employer @Printed on recycled paper STATE OF :M:INNESOTA BOARD OF WATER & SOIL RESOlTRCES The Matter of the Appeal of Dorsey & Dorsey c/o Rick Dorsey of the Determination of the Loc'al Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions (LGU: City ofChanhassen) APPEAL OF WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT DETERMINATION TO: THE STATE OF MINNESOTA THROUGH ITS BOARD OF WATER & SOIL RESOURCES, AGENCY ADMINISTERlNG THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACTION, MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 103G, RULES PART 8420 Rick Dorsey, for his appeal of the determination of the City ofChanhassen, states and alleges the following: 1. Rick Dorsey appeals the determination of the City of Chanhassen under the Wetland Conservation Act, as contained ;n the Apri16, 2007, letter and Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision and TEP Findings of Fact by Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator, City of Chanhassen, (Exhibit 1). 2. The City of Chanhassen is the Local Government Unit (LGU) implementing the Wetland Conservation Act in Carver County, Minnesota. 3. Dorsey's exemption request was heard concurrently with an exemption request by adjoining landowner Fox. The two cases have issues in cortunon. 4. The decision is contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence. The decision maker applied the wrong standard of proof, applying a standard that required conclusive proof. PMay 4, 2007:C2004 10 08 F:IDATA\20453\OOIIPleadinglDorsey FINAL Appeal tollWSR.wpdjck 1 5. Rick Dorsey is a General Partner of Dorsey and Dorsey who is the owner of real property located in the NW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Section 23, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota. Street Address: 1551 Lyman Blvd (pill 250230400). 6. On 'or about February 5, 2007, Rick Dorsey submitted an application for approval of a wetland project. Dorsey applied for an exemption determination for four areas designated as. Sites 1-4 respectively. The purpose of the exemption request was to obtain declaratory determination establishing that the sites were exempt in 1991 and that they remain exempt. The evidence was presented at a meeting, lasting approximately one hour. The evidence showed that the sites were already exempt, were former wetlands, all of which have been drained, excavated . and/or filled as of passage of WCA. 7. The decision regarding the two areas designated as Site 2 and Site 4 are impacted by the same legal error. The evidence established that prior to 1987, site 2 and 4 met the criteria for WCA exemption 1A. Specifically, the land was used for row crops.l Minn. Stat. ~ 103G.2241 subdivision (IA) part 1. Further based on available eviden,ce it was determined that, during the time period of 1981-1986 the subject areas showed rio sign of a wetland or were of 1 With respect to site #2, the drainage {drain tile) and fill activity occurred prior to 1991. The evidence shows it was annually seeded with crops for the required number of years petween "the time period 1981-1991." TheLGU agrees to the exemption. The exemption occurred at the time of enactment of the WCA and not at the time of the formal application. ,MN Rule 8420.0210 paragraph 2, "An exemption may apply whether or not the local government unit has made an exemption determination." As such an exemption for the work alieady done in the wetland was effectively grandfathered in with the WCA when it became effective in 1992, Because it was exempt under Subp. lA, for work already done a certificate pf exemption was not needed or requested. Again, in that a certificate was not requested does not mean an exemption did not apply. PMay 4. 2007:C2007 04 23 F:IDATAI20453\OOI\PleadinglDorsey FINAL Appeal to BWSR.wpd dvf 2 type 1 or 2 and iftype.2 were less than 2 acres. Having found that the sites were exempt at that time, however, the LGU incorrectly imposed a tem year deed restriction dating from the time of the exemption determination, rather than from the date of the date of the existence of the exemption itself. The decision wrongly assumes that the purpose ofan exemption determination is to authorize a particular activity as of the date of the exemption request. From this error, the exemption decision determines, that the panel should place an agricultural restriction effective after the date of the exemption determination. As a result of this error, the decision wrongly , concludes that the ;:tpplicant must restrict his usa.ge of the property for at least ten years after the date of the decision. Exemptions are self-executing, and the date of the exemption determination is irrelevant for purposes of applying the exemption. 8. With respect to Site # 3, the evidence showed that a wetland of some kind may have existed on this site prior to 1981. During that time, the area was fenced and used as pasture for dairy cows. The County then in 1981, widened Lyman Boulevard and lawfully used.this area for clean fill arising from the road construction. The road project created a new clean swale along the 20 foot high road embankment. In 1981 .. 1982 the site was reseeded and used as pasture. In 1983, a:ftt~r the balance oflowland ~'as filled with soil hauled in from another City project, the south portion of the former wetland was planted in soybeans and the north half reseeded in pasture grass (hay) which was mechanically harvested and sold through 1988. Thus, at the time WCA was passed, there was no wetland and the 'land would have been exempt as of the date that WCA became effective. The TEP Panel wrongly focused on an artificial wet area which developed along the road ditch. The decision that Site #3 is not exempt is arbitrary PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:IDATA\20453\OOIIPleadinglDorseyFINAL Appeal to IlWSR.wpd dvf 3 and capricious, unlawful, and contrary to the evidence. Further, as discussed below, the TEP Panel and LGU applied the wrong standard in evaluating the evidence. 9. With respect to Site 1, the TEP Panel used an on-site visit March 22,2007, to determine the size and type of wetland area to be impacted as the basis for its decision to deny the exemption request. This review was irrelevant as it did not review the status of size and type prior to 1991. 10. In the relevant time period for exemption determination, there was no wetland on site 1. Within the application, as well as at the predetermination meeting with the TEP Panel, Dorsey and Ben Meyer, a Senior Environmental Consultant with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates representing Dorsey, provided detailed information regarding the issue of wetland size between 1981 and 1989. They showed that the former wetland had been drained and tiled for over thirty years by the time the WCA was enacted. In an aerial photo from 1963, supplied to the TEP Panel in the application, one can see the "Y shape" shadow line on the land including the site area. 11. Minn. Stat.s103G.2241, subd. 1 (a)(1), and Minn. Rules Part 8420.0122, subp. l(a) state that a replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in a wetland that were annually seeded with crops or were in cro.p rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in 6 of the most recent 10 years prior to January 1, 1991. Because these lands met that requirement as of January 1,' 1991, the panel wrongly looked at the condition of the land as of a later date. 12. The site was excavated and wetland soil types were removed, in 1989, with approval from the City of Chanhassen, for reasons described in detain in the application. The excavation was done to make a man made surface water management pond. The plan approved PMay 4, 2oo7:C2007 04 23 F:\DATA\20453\00IIPleading\Dorsey FINAL Appeal to BWSR wpd dvf 4 by the City, and of public record, included a survey and topographical map (the application included a copy of said documents) which sUrveyed the former wetland area in site #1. At that time the high-water ponding area from the incidental pond starting to form as a result of a blocked ditch discussed in the application. Scaling it out, the size is less than 0.7 acres in total. Under exemption lA, the determination is based on pre-existing land use to the WCA enactment, not current time use. For this reason, the size. and type of wetland are to be based on what was there pre 1991, '-Ising historical data,. " The O,"'ller provided the TEP PaneJ with a survey and topographical map submitted to the City of Chanhassen in 1989 and accepted in the public record as part of an excavation permit for the site. It shows the size of the historic wetland on site # 1 had been between 0.6 and 0,7 acres. The hydric soils, in the approximately 0.7 acre site which were already drain tiled but blocked, were excavated in 1989 with the hydric soils removed from the site, and the depression left as a man made surface water management pond, for reasons described in detail in the application. A storm water management pond was created after the . wetland soil types were removed from the site. 13. Site # 1 has been drain tiled and farmed for more than 23 years prior to 1986, As a fonner wetland through and including 1986 it would not be type-able because it was not a wetland. hi 1987-1988 when water started to puddle into the growing season, it was incidental to ditch blockage on neighboring property. Any wet ground on the site today is not a natural wetland: it is a man made storm pond that is now overflowing without an emergency overflow. (The increase in the storm pond size since 1989 is due to surface water drainage blocked on neighboring property and seepage of the storm pond saturating a buffer area). Neither of which was intended to cre~te wetlands when the pond was .created. PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:IDAT A\20453\00 1 IPleadinglDorsey FINAL Appeallo BWSR wpd dyf 5 14. Even if there had been a wetland at the relevant time period, it still would have been in error to deny the exemption, because the land was devoted to exempt agricultural uses. . Evidently the panel misconstrued the meaning of the terms crop, pasture grass, and legumes, and misconstrued the meaning of the subdivision 1 (a)(I) exemption. 15. "Hayland" is defmed as an area that was mechanically harvested or that was planted with annually seeded crops in a crop rotation seeding of grasses or legumes in six of the last ten years. Minn. Stat.gl03G.005, subd. 10(c); Minn. Rules Part 8420.0110, subp. 20. 16. "Agricultural land" is defined as land used for horticultural, row, close grown, pasture and hayland crops. Minn. Stat.g103G.005, subd. 2(a); Minn. Rules Part 8420.0110, subp. 4. 17. The statute, rules and SONAR support a plain reading of the exemption requested by Dorsey. 18. A crop is any plant that is grown in significant quantitiest'o be harvested as food, livestock fodder, or for another economic purpose. Pasture is land with herbaceous vegetation cover used for grazing of livestock as part of a farm or ranch. The key difference between pasture and crop is that a crop is harvested for use away from the specific location that it-is grown,. whereas with pasture, an animal grazes and consumes the plant as it is growing. A legume is a plant in the family Fabaceae (or Leguminosae), or a fruit of these plants. Well-known legumes include alfalfa, clover, peas, beans, lentils, lupins and peanuts. 19. The record in this case consists of a variety of documents, maps, and other submissions to the LGU and TEP as well as approximately one hour of testimony presented to the panel. It appears based upon the decision ofthe panel that this testimony was nQt considered PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:\DATA\20453\00JIPleading\Dorsey'FINAL Appeal to BWSR wpd dvf 6 as a result of the panel's erroneous belief that an exemption can only be granted upon conclusiv~ photographic evidence. wherefore, appellant requests that the decision of the panel requiring a ten year deed' restriction from date of decision be reversed, and that the decision of the panel denying ~xemptions to two parcels be reversed. Dated: May L, 2007 . RJNR:E-NOONAN k . By =Zt2..A 'L ~ Gerald W. Yon Korff, #113232 Attorneys for Rick Dorsey 1015 W. St. Germain St., Ste. 300 P.O. Box 1497 S1. Cloud, MN 56302 (320) 251-6700 , ' PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:IDATA\204S3\OOl\PleadinglDorsey FINAL Appeallo BWSR wpd dvf 7 RINKE NOONAN A T TOR N E Y S A T LAW SUITE 300, US BANK PLAZA, P. O. Box 1497 1015 W. ST. GERMAIN STREET ST. CLOUD, MINNESOTA 56302~1497 TELEPHONE 320.251-6700, FAX 320-656-3500 EMAIL: MAIL@RNOON.COM WWW.RNOON.COM RECEIVED MAY 0 7 Z007 May 4, 2007 /:'o~ YO CITY OF CHANHASSEN l.J~IIv;::-. O~4t ~ 'r"OIy Mr. Jim Haertel Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 Re: Our File No. 20453.001 Dear Mr. Haertel: Enclosed for filing, along with the filing fee of$200.00, is Dorsey & Dorsey, c/o Rick Dorsey's appeal of the decision of the Local Government Unit, City of Chanhassen. By this letter I am also verifying to you that on the same day we have mailed a copy of the Petition for Appeal to the LGU at the following address: City of Chanhassen A TTN: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, RINKE-NOONAN By Gerald W. Von Korff /dvf Enclosures cc: Rick Dorsey (w/encl) Cit~A:~~i. PMay 2, 2007:C2007 05 02 F:\DAT A\20453\OOI\Letters\BWSR appeal filing Dorsey wpd dvf RINKE, NOONAN. SMOLEY, DETER. COLOMBO. WIANT, VON KORFF a HOBBS. LTD 0, Michael Noonan William A. Smoley' Kurt A. Deter' Barrett L. Colombo James L Wiant Gerald W. Van Korff Sharon G. Hobbs David J. Meyers1,2:J.6 John J. Meuers Roger C. JustinJ.4 John J. Babcock Jill A. Adkins Igor S. Lenzner Gary R. Leistico4.5 John C. Kolb Scott G. Hamak Pamela A. Steckman' Stefanie L. Brown Tanya T. Hinkemeyer Ryan J. Hatton1 Benjamin B. Bohnsack3 lim A. Sime7 James A. Mogen Nicholas R. Delaney4 Chad D. Miller Adam A. Ripple Brodie L. Miller Sarah E. Fisher 1 Qua/ified neutral under Rule 114. 2. A Real Propeny Law Specialist certified by the Minnesota State Bar Association. 3 Admitted to practice Jaw in Wisconsin. 4. Admitted to practice Jaw In North Dakota. 5. Admitted to practice law in South Dakota. 6. Sherburne County Examiner of Titles. 7. Admitted to practice Jaw in Arizona. ..) ~ , STATE OF MINNESOTA BOARD OF WATER & SOIL RESOURCES The Matter of the Appeal of Dorsey & Dorsey c/o Rick Dorsey of the Determination of the Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions (LGU: City ofChanhassen) APPEAL OF WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT DETERMINATION TO: THE STATE OF MINNESOTA THROUGH ITS BOARD OF WATER & SOIL RESOURCES, AGENCY ADMINISTERING THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACTION, MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 103G, RULES PART 8420 Rick Dorsey, for his appeal of the determination of the City of Chanhassen, states and alleges the following: 1. Rick Dorsey appeals the determination of the City of Chanhassen under the Wetland Conservation Act, as contained in the April 6, 2007, letter and Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision and TEP Findings of Fact by Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator, City ofChanhassen. (Exhibit 1). 2. The City of Chanhassen is the Local Government Unit (LGU) implementing the Wetland Conservation Act in Carver County, Minnesota. 3. Dorsey's exemption request was heard concurrently with an exemption request by adjoining landowner Fox. The two cases have issues in common. 4. The decision is contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence. The decision maker applied the wrong standard of proof, applying a standard that required conclusive proof. PMay 4. 2007:C2004 1008 F:IDATA\20453\001\PleadinglDorsey FINAL Appeal.o BWSR."l'djck 1 5. Rick Dorsey is a General Partner of Dorsey and Dorsey who is the owner of real property located in the NW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Section 23, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota. Street Address: 1551 Lyman Blvd (PID 250230400). 6. On or about February 5, 2007, Rick Dorsey submitted an application for approval of a wetland project. Dorsey applied for an exemption determination for four areas designated as Sites 1-4 respectively. The purpose of the exemption request was to obtain declaratory determination establishing that the sites were exempt in 1991 and that they remain exempt. The evidence was presented at a meeting, lasting approximately one hour. The evidence showed that the sites were already exempt, were former wetlands, all of which have been drained, excavated and/or filled as of passage ofWCA. 7. The decision regarding the two areas designated as Site 2 and Site 4 are impacted by the same legal error. The evidence established that prior to 1987, site 2 and 4 met the criteria for WCA exemption lA. Specifically, the land was used for row crops. 1 Minn. Stat. ~ 103G.2241 subdivision (lA) part 1. Further based on available evidence it was determined that during the time period of 1981-1986 the subject areas showed no sign of a wetland or were of I With respect to site #2, the drainage (drain tile) and fill activity occurred prior to 1991. The evidence shows it was annually seeded with crops for the required number of years between "the time period 1981-1991." The LGU agrees to the exemption. The exemption occurred at the time of enactment of the WCA and not at the time of the formal application. MN Rule 8420.0210 paragraph 2, "An exemption may apply whether or not the local government unit has made an exemption determination." As such an exemption for the work already done in the wetland was effectively grandfathered in with the WCA when it became effective in 1992. Because it was exempt under Subp. lA, for work already done a certificate of exemption was not needed or requested. Again, in that a certificate was not requested does not mean an exemption did not apply. PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:IDA T A\20453\00JIPleadinglDorsey FINAL Appeal to BWSR, wpd dvf 2 type 1 or 2 and if type 2 were less than 2 acres. Having found that the sites were exempt at that time, however, the LGU incorrectly imposed a ten year deed restriction dating from the time of the exemption determination, rather than from the date of the date of the existence of the exemption itself. The decision wrongly assumes that the purpose of an exemption determination is to authorize a particular activity as of the date of the exemption request. Prom this error, the exemption decision determines that the panel should place an agricultural restriction effective after the date of the exemption determination. As a result of this error, the decision wrongly concludes that the applicant must restrict his usage of the property for at least ten years after the date of the decision. Exemptions are self-executing, and the date of the exemption determination is irrelevant for purposes of applying the exemption. 8. With respect to Site # 3, the evidence showed that a wetland of some kind may have existed on this site prior to 1981. During that time, the area was fenced and used as pasture for dairy cows. The County then in 1981, widened Lyman Boulevard and lawfully used this area for clean fill arising from the road construction. The road project created a new clean swale along the 20 foot high road embankment. In 1981 - 1982 the site was reseeded and used as pasture. In 1983, after the balance of lowland was filled with soil hauled in from another City project, the south portion of the former wetland was planted in soybeans and the north half reseeded in pasture grass (hay) which was mechanically harvested and sold through 1988. Thus, at the time WCA was passed, there was no wetland and the land would have been exempt as of the date that WCA became effective. The TEP Panel wrongly focused on an artificial wet area which developed along the road ditch. The decision that Site #3 is not exempt is arbitrary PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:\DATA\20453\00IIPleading\Dorsey FINAL Appeal to BWSR,wpd dvf 3 and capricious, unlawful, and contrary to the evidence. Further, as discussed below, the TEP Panel and LGU applied the wrong standard in evaluating the evidence. 9. With respect to Site 1, the TEP Panel used an on-site visit March 22,2007, to determine the size and type of wetland area to be impacted as the basis for its decision to deny the exemption request. This review was irrelevant as it did not review the status of size and type prior to 1991. 10. In the relevant time period for exemption determination, there was no wetland on site 1. Within the application, as well as at the predetermination meeting with the TEP Panel, Dorsey and Ben Meyer, a Senior Environmental Consultant with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates representing Dorsey, provided detailed information regarding the issue of wetland size between 1981 and 1989. They showed that the former wetland had been drained and tiled for over thirty years by the time the WCA was enacted. In an aerial photo from 1963, supplied to the TEP Panel in the application, one can see the "Y shape" shadow line on the land including the site area. 11. Minn. Stat.sl03G.2241, subd. 1 (a)(1), and Minn. Rules Part 8420.0122, subp. l(a) state that a replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in a wetland that were annually seeded with crops or were in crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in 6 of the most recent 10 years prior to January 1, 1991. Because these lands met that requirement as of January 1, 1991, the panel wrongly looked at the condition of the land as of a later date. 12. The site was excavated and wetland soil types were removed, in 1989, with approval from the City of Chanhassen, for reasons described in detain in the application. The excavation was done to make a man made surface water management pond. The plan approved PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:IDATA\20453\001\PleadinglDorsey FINAL Appeal to BWSR"1'd dvf 4 , , by the City, and of public record, included a survey and topographical map (the application included a copy of said documents) which surveyed the former wetland area in site #1. At that time the high-water ponding area from the incidental pond starting to form as a result of a blocked ditch discussed in the application. Scaling it out, the size is less than 0.7 acres in total. Under exemption lA, the determination is based on pre-existing land use to the WCA enactment, not current time use. For this reason, the size and type of wetland are to be based on what was there pre 1991, using historical data.. " The Owner provided the TEP Panel with a survey and topographical map submitted to the City of Chanhassen in 1989 and accepted in the public record as part of an excavation permit for the site. It shows the size of the historic wetland on site # 1 had been between 0.6 and 0.7 acres. The hydric soils, in the approximately 0.7 acre site which were already drain tiled but blocked, were excavated in 1989 with the hydric soils removed from the site, and the depression left as a man made surface water management pond, for reasons described in detail in the application. A storm water management pond was created after the wetland soil types were removed from the site. 13. Site #1 has been drain tiled and farmed for more than 23 years prior to 1986. As a former wetland through and including 1986 it would not be type-able because it was not a wetland. In 1987-1988 when water started to puddle into the growing season, it was incidental to ditch blockage on neighboring property. Any wet ground on the site today is not a natural wetland: it is a man made storm pond that is now overflowing without an emergency overflow. (The increase in the storm pond size since 1989 is due to surface water drainage blocked on neighboring property and seepage ofthe storm pond saturating a buffer area). Neither of which was intended to create wetlands when the pond was created. PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:IDA T A\20453\00IIPleadinglDorsey FINAL Appeal to BWSR, wpd dvf 5 , . 14. Even if there had been a wetland at the relevant time period, it still would have been in error to deny the exemption, because the land was devoted to exempt agricultural uses. Evidently the panel misconstrued the meaning of the terms crop, pasture grass, and legumes, and misconstrued the meaning of the subdivision 1 (a)(1) exemption. 15. "Hay land" is defined as an area that was mechanically harvested or that was planted with annually seeded crops in a crop rotation seeding of grasses or legumes in six of the last ten years. Minn. Stat.s103G.005, subd. 10(c); Minn. Rules Part 8420.0110, subp. 20. 16. "Agricultural land" is defined as land used for horticultural, row, close grown, pasture and hayland crops. Minn. Stat.sl03G.005, subd. 2(a); Minn. Rules Part 8420.0110, subp.4. 17. The statute, rules and SONAR support a plain reading of the exemption requested by Dorsey. 18. A crop is any plant that is grown in significant quantities to be harvested as food, livestock fodder, or for another economic purpose. Pasture is land with herbaceous vegetation cover used for grazing of livestock as part of a farm or ranch. The key difference between pasture and crop is that a crop is harvested for use away from the specific location that it is grown, whereas with pasture, an animal grazes and consumes the plant as it is growing. A legume is a plant in the family Fabaceae (or Leguminosae), or a fruit of these plants. Well-known legumes include alfalfa, clover, peas, beans, lentils, lupins and peanuts. 19. The record in this case consists of a variety of documents, maps, and other submissions to the LGU and TEP as well as approximately one hour of testimony presented to the panel. It appears based upon the decision of the panel that this testimony was not considered PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:IDATA\20453\00IIPleadinglDorsey FINAL Appeallo BWSR,wpd dvf 6 ") r \ J as a result of the panel's erroneous belief that an exemption can only be granted upon conclusive photographic evidence. Wherefore, appellant requests that the decision of the panel requiring a ten year deed restriction from date of decision be reversed, and that the decision of the panel denying exemptions to two parcels be reversed. Dated: May L, 2007 RINKE-NOONAN k By ~Ik/. Z ~ Gerald W. Von Korff, #113232 Attorneys for Rick Dorsey 1015 W. St. Germain St., Ste. 300 P.O. Box 1497 St. Cloud, MN 56302 (320) 251-6700 PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:IDATA\20453\00IIPleadinglDorsey FINAL Appeallo BWSR.wpd dvf 7 /-' Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act No'tice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision Name and Address of Local Government Unit: City of Chanhassen - 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 - Chanhassen, MN 55317 Name of Applicant: Dorsey & Dorsey Project Name: Dorsey Wetland Exemption Application Number: n/a Type of Application (check one): lZl Exemption Decision o No Loss Decision o Replacement Plan Decision o Banking Plan Decision o Wetland Type/Boundary Decision Date of Decision: April 6, 2007 Check One: lZl Approved (Sites 2 and 4) o Approved with conditions lZl Denied (Sites 1 and 3) Summary of Project/Decision (indicate exemption number per MN Rule 8420.0122, if applicable): 1A The applicant requested exemptions for Sites #1-4 on the property in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 23, Township 116N, Range 23W in Carver County, Minnesota. Based on the findings of the Technical Evaluation Panel (Attachment 1), dated April 6, 2007, the City of Chanhassen denies the exemption requests for Sites 1 and 3. Based on the findings of the Technical Evaluation Panel (Attachment 1), dated April 6, 2007, the City of Chanhassen approves the exemPtion requests for Sites 2 and 4. List of Addressees: Landowner: Dorsey & Dorsey, c/o Rick Dorsey, 14215 Greenview Court, Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Members of Technical Evaluation Panel: Greg Graczyk, Carver SWCD Brad Wozney, BWSR Watershed Distl1ct or Watershed Management Organization (If Applicable): Bob Obermeyer, RPBCWD EXHIBIT ~'~f'~"i' , " Page lof2 , Department of Natural Resources Regional Office (select ap ro riate office): NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Regional Director Reg, Env, Assess, Eco!' Reg, Env. Assess. Eco!' Reg. Env, Assess, Eco!' 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd, NE Div, Eco!' Services Div, Eco!' Services Div, Eco!' Services Bemidji, MN 56601 1201 E. Hwy, 2 1200 Warner Road 261 Hwy. 15 South Grand Rapids, MN 55744 St. Paul, MN 55106 New Ulm, MN 56073 DNR Representative Kate Drewry, Area Hydrologist Corp of Engineers Project Manager Joe Yanta, ACOE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District ATTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 Individual members of the public who requested a copy, summary only: Ben Meyer, Bonestroo Jeff Fox You are hereby notified that the decision of the Local Government Unit on the above- referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Local Govemment Unit's Findings and Conclusions is attached. Pursuant to Minn. R. 8420.0250 any appeal of the decision must be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice. THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Additional approvals or permits from local, state, andfederal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. April 6, 2007 Date Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Name and Title Attachments: 1. Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, dated April 6, 2007 Page 2 of2 . I.'. I \, l' " , "", l ~Mihnesota Wetland Conservation Act " . ; )",' , '" -'Technical Evaluation Panel-Findings.of Fact'. ':, ,,,..:, " '.. .'... " , 1 ' . I ~ 1 " ., , .' .. J ' 1" \ . ,;.' ' , Date:April 6, 2007 LGU: City ofChanhassen County: Carver LGU Contact Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Project Name/#:Dorsev Wetland Exemption Phone #: 952,227.1135 Location of Project: NW ~ 23 116N 23W 1,4 1,4 1,4 Sec. Twp. Range Lot/Block City: Chanhassen County: Carver TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project (Check if viewed project site) ~ LGU:Lori Haak ~ BWSR:Brad Wozney ~ SWCD: Greg Graczyk D DNR (ifapplicable):_ Other Wetland Experts present None. TEP requested by: LGU 1. Type of TEP determination requested (check those that apply): ~ Exemption (WCA Exemption #.J.A) _ Wetland Boundary and Type No-Loss Replacement Plan 2. Description ofWetland(s) with proposed impact: (see attached) a. Wetland Type (Circular 39) (Cowardin)_ b. Wetland Size c. Size of Proposed Impact (acres and square feet) 3.52 acres (153.331 sf) 3. Have sequencing requirements been met? Attach Sequencing Finding of Fact as supporting information, D Yes D No (if no, list why) nla 4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? DYes D No (if no, list why) nla 5. How will the project affect the following wetland functions: Functions Impact Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation AestheticsIRecreation Shoreland Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Rare Plant! Animal Habitat Commercial Uses nla No Impact Improve 6, For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? DYes D No (if no, list why) nla 7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item I? (see attached) DYes D Yes, with Conditions D No (if no, list why) If no, why? 8. List TEP findings to support recommendation in question 7 above. (see attached) 9. SIGNATURES (ifTEP recommendation is /1ot a CO/lSenSlIS, /lote with all asterisk and exolain 0/1 tll(' back of this page) SWCD Re rese~tativ , / - . X-t:!c, v GU[Representative (Date) BW~ AdJ~-h Vr1 ~\ ~\5flClJ\J res. -/v~I!OVJr I /""'/r..1":F' {,../) vvv tel ,. DNF Page I of e) Dorsey TE? Findings of Fact.doc Dorsey Wetland Exemption TEP Findings of Fact April 6, 2007 Attachment 2. Description of Wetland(s) with proposed impact: . Site 1: Type 3 with a Type 2 fringe; 2.0 acres on subject property (3.3 acres total) . Site 2: Type 1; 0.96 acres . Site 3: Type 2; 0.39 acres . Site 4: Type 2; 0.17 acres on subject propelty (1.34 acres total) 7. Does the Technical Evaluation Panel recommend Approval of Activity proposed in item I? . Site 1: No. . Site 2: Yes. . Site 3: No. . Site 4: Yes. 8. List TEP findings to support recommendation in question 7 above. . TEP members from the LGU and the Carver SWCD conducted an on-site review on March 22, 2007. . Site 1: The aerial photographs from 1981 to 1986 show a change in the cropping pattern around the apparent wetland edge that do not support the argument that the area "was planted with annually seeded crops or was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991." Additionally, the affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19,2007) states that "Site #1 was in hayland and was mechanically harvested in the years 1981-1986." This is not an annually seeded crop or a rotation of pasture grass or legumes. Also, a portion of this wetland is not Type 1 or Type 2 wetland. . Site 2: The aerial photographs from 1981 to 1986 show that the area was annually seeded with crops. Additionally, the affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19,2007) supports this finding. . Site 3: The affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19,2007) states that "Site #3 was pasture and soybeans in the years 1981-1986." However, the aerial photographs from 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1990 show changes in vegetation management around the apparent wetland edge that do not support the argument that the area "was planted with annually seeded crops or was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in six of the last ten years plior to January 1, 1991." Several of the photos (1981, 1988) are not clear enough to draw conclusions regarding the crop history in and around Site 3. Therefore it cannot be conclusively determined that that the area "was planted with annually seeded crops or was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991." . Site 4: The affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19, 2007) states that "Site #4 was planted in row crops of sweet com and soybeans in the years 1981-1986." The aerial photographs from 1981 to 1991 show that Site 4 was planted in row crops six of ten years prior to 1991. . All exempt wetlands will be subject to the 10 year deed recording requirements set forth in MR 8420.0115. A TT ACHMENTS 1. Aelial photographs, 1981 through 1986 2. Affidavit of landowner, signed March 19,2007 March 12, 2007 City of Chanhassen Attn: Lori Haak 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Dorsey WCA Ag. Exemption Application Ms. Haak, Enclosed are the FSA aerial photos from 1981 to 1986 that pertain to the WCA Agricultural Exemption for the Dorsey property. These photos are provided as a supplement to the original application and provide documentation as outlined in Minnesota Rule 8420.0122, Subpart 1 A. Please feel free to contact me at 651-604-4767 or ben.meyer@bonestroo.com if you have any questions regarding these supplemental materials. Sincerely, ~~~. Benjamin L. Meyer Certified Wetland Delineator Sr. Wetland Scientist Cc: Rick Dorsey Greg Graczyk - Carver SWCD Brad Wozney - BWSR 2335 Highway 36 W SI. Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651-636.4600 Fax 651.636-1311 www.bonestroo.com .. Bonestroo WETLAND SITE REVIEW - 1981 FIGURE 1 .la- 1,,- Bonestroo I: \)'\:'()102L!- \ \.mj\DWf} \ VV0.t I nrll : Review.rlVJr] 1901 FSA AERIAL PHOTO ". \ MAf~CH 1 7.. 2007 f<ICK DOf<SEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION WETLAND SITE REVIEW - 1982 FIGURE 2 ~I- 1y- Bonestroo 1:\2\207024\Cod\Dwg\Wetlond Review.dwg 1982 FSA AERIAL PHOTO '.' s MARCH 12. 2007 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION WETLAND SITE REVIEW - 1983 FIGURE 3 .. Bonestroo 1:\2\207024 \Cad\Dwg \ Wetland Review.dwg 1983 FSA AERIAL PHOTO ." s MARCH 12. 2007 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION WETLAND SITE REVIEW 1984 FIGURE 4 -t~ Bonestroo I: \2\7-07024 \Cad\Dwg \ Wetland Review.dwg 1984 FSA AERtAL PHOTO .' , MARCH 12. 2007 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION WETLAND SITE REVIEW 1985 FIGURE 5 # Bonestroo I: \2\207024 \Cad\Dwg \ Wetland Review.dwg 1955 FSA AERIAL PHOTO '." s MARCH 1 2, 2007 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION WETLAND SITE REVIEW - 1986 FIGURE 6 ~~ Bonestroo I: \2\207024 \ Cad\Dwg \ Wetland Review.dwg 1986 FSA AERIAL PHOTO ..' s MARCH 12. 2007 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION ~ " ~ . ' . Mi'1h"esota Wetland Conservation Act : Affidavit I Exemption Evidence for Local Government Units , , I do hereby certi fy that the [olloyving statement of evidence or activity is tme and may be used as evidence to support qualification for \VCA exemptions, The LOU may require additional affidavits or verification evidence before making an exemption determination, Proiect Location: 116 23 W Carver County (Count\'iCil\'fl.ou' Block!SubdlVISlon i Nw1l40f Sw1l4 23 Go\' LO(I') Quarter Secrion(,) Section!>) Township No. Range No Exemption: # DESCRIPTION or EVIDENCE fOR EXEMPTION: Dorsey and Dorsey is the owner 0 f the agricultural land including the areas listed below since 1979: Site # 1 was in hayland and was mechanically harvested in the years 1981-1986. Site #2 was planted in row crops of sweet corn, green beans, and soy beans in the years 1981-1986. Site # 3 was pasture and soybeans in the years 1981-1986, Site #4 was planted in row crops of sweet com and soybeans in the years 1981-1986. On penalty of perjury, r hereby swear under oath that the information above, made for the purpose of documenting qualificatiorljor an exemption from the WCA, is true to the best of my knowledge. / );{/. -1;: !'/1{'!~ r;/:.-~ : / March 1,.2007 469569752 S' / 0 S . 1ST 19naturc (1)1 ,-J- '/1 L !~jl" TIt. , ). __ ate OCla ec. No, ,;-: -;i-/ '/,t '1 , '11,/ '/";' ) ACKNO\VLEDGE1VIENT The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me on: --114ti (day), ~(month), 2M..!L(year), by /l{Ckuf; ~7/~-U-' , p,", I Of2[~ ~NiIc.""__ BWSR -'oem we A . E""'pti,,_ 4(E"mptio,,_ Afnd",iti ~ tamm:::::: I01d pdt 2003) lCNotar; Stamp or Seal) Page 2 of2 BWSRJorm_ WCA_Exemption_ 4(Exemption_Affidavit) (ApriI200J) J),lIc"6U1il (1. 2001 Leu: Cil\' ofCh,mh:lsscl1 CI\\I11ty: CilI'ver L CiLJ C{)l\t~ici:l,C1ri Hcl:l!;, W:lIer f<.<:sollrn:s Cn,ndlll:lIcl 1'll1JCCi Namdll:[)olscv WCII,IIle! [,\cll1jJlioll I'hum: ii: 952,227,11,,5 /.oc:ttiun l!1 I'ruic<.:t' NW SW 2.' ! 16N 1/, ,;; '/. Sce T wp City: Chanhasscn County: Carver n::p rVkmber,; (and othcrs) \\hn I cvieweJ projcct: (Chcd if ,'ilWC'd projecl site) ~ LGU:Lori Hc!;!!; ~ BWSR:13rad \VUl.l1cV o SWCD: (in:" Gr:J(:zvl; 0 DNR nf:IJ)"lilahk):_ Oiher Wetland Experb prc:;cnt: Nonc, 'I J:P requesled by: LGU 2_,W l~,\ngc L ol/l3locl; I Yllc (II TI;f) dctcrmin;liipl1 rcqucskd (,Iw,klll"" /!tillil!'!'!>): ~ ["vemptioll (WCA [:\cmplil\n :tJi.,) _____ ~ \V...:tL:l1d Buund,llS :tnd ! )T)C NII.L",;, __"__ F~Cp"'CCJ1lClll Pian .2 I)\:SCllptioll ill Wc:lll1lllrs) \'ill1 pr{lp"sc(/ im[)((cl: (SCLl "11"..-11..-<1) a WCtl:ll1d Typc leilelllar)l)) iCow;lrdin)_ b Wctl:\lvJ Size c Si7.c ul Propused Impact (aL'le,; and SqUill\: !'cell J.52 acrcs (15J,:n l sl-l I-Llvc "eCjl1ei\l.:ing requirements hCe111l1CI) !\Uach Seqllcncing Finding oj hCI ;IS .\uPI"lIting in!"0rl11,llIOn o Ycs 0 Nil (il 1111 liSI \\'hy) n/a .1 I, Illc prlljclt CIH1,iSlL'111 \\ith lh<.: inlell! ulthc ulInpl,:hensi\'c Im'ill wlrlel plan aml/,'r Ihe \\':\lclshcd distlil.t p11l11_ 11\..: 111<.:tfl>l'lllilall sw t:ice walcl m;ln"gCl1lelll plan :lmlnIC\i(I!J<>l11:1I1 glllllllt!\\'iller 111:IIWgeIl1Cllt plall, ;iI1d loci! L'omp/'(:hL'il,il'!: pl:11l and !lining {lIdini1ncc" Dye.... D NIJ (if no lisl wh)'! nh 5 How willihe project atTect the following weiland !"unctions: Ill" Functions Impact No Impact Ploodwatcr Sll1rage NllIricnt Assimilation Sediment Entrapment GmunrJwat<:r R~chal ge Low Flo\\' Augmel1lalil1n A<:SI hCI ics/l~ ccreal ion ShIHeLt nd !\nchmi ng Wildllk Habilat Fish<.:\ ic:s Habi:at Improvc R:lr~ P!;iiit/Al1iniUl rlJ:)\tlH C()ll1m~rci;d Uses 6 for Ic:plllcel11cnt plan or 1m-Ius,; dctenninalilJn,;, Ill(: wl:llaml functions maintained at :In cquallll gr~ater level) DYes 0 No (il n\1. lisl why) l1/a 7 [)llC" r\;~hi1iCilI [v;1I11:tli\":I1I':1I1cl ,eCllllill1CIlO ilp[1I\\\';1I (lIthe ilclivily ]11\1i)\)scd inllcll1 I,' (,ee :ltI;lched) o Ycs 0 Yc, \~Ilh COlidllil"lls 0 l'h\ I illll1 liS! why) 11'1111 \, 11)' ) S List rl~p linding.... to support rccommem)alilJl1 111 qllcsril>n 7 above (see ;lif<1c!Jeo) C) l)~l{ Rl."{lfl::,cnl:nivc: IDale} ! )lH"I'~ f1:I' [:it1llllt~:- ol [':wl th:c [':lg'l , Ilf I \ \(lri! ~{l{nJ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1700 Markei 80ule/3[d PO 80x 147 Crianhassen, illN 55317 Administration Phone 952,2271100 Fax 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Pllone. 952,227,1180 Fax 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone 952.227.1160 Fax 952.227.1170 Finance Phone 952.227 1140 Fax. 952.227 1110 Park & Recreation Phone 952.227 1120 Fax 952.227.1110 Recreation Cenler 2310 Cau Iler Boulevard Phone 952.227 1 '100 Fax: 952,227140<1 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952.227 1130 Fax 952227 1110 PuiJlic Works : 591 P3r:~ Road ?hOfi2. 952.227 130C "ax 9522271310 Senior Center Pi1Je, 952.2271 '2S ~ax 2271\ Web Site The CilV al Clianhassen ., :: April 6,2007 Dorsey & Dorsey c/o Rick Dorsey 14215 Greemiew Court Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Re: Wetland Exemption Application Dear Mr. Dorsey: Enclosed please rind the City's decision, as LGU for the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, regarding your recent wetland exemption application. Please bear in mind that the proposed activity must comply with provisions of the Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, as well as the regulations of any other applicable jurisdictions. Specifically: I. A permit from the City of Chanhassen must be obtained for all excavating, mining, filling, and grading operations in excess of 50 cubic yards. Pell11its for excavating, mining, filling, and grading more than 50 cubic yards, but less than 1,000 cubic yards of material in a 12-month period are processed administratively. Permits for excavating, mining, filling, and grading of 1,000 cubic yards of material or more in a 12-month period are processed in the same manner as an interim use permit and require approval by the Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council. 2. This exemption is subject to the 10 year deed recording requirement in MR 8420.0115. A document meeting the minimum requirements of MR 8420.0115 (enclosed) must be provided to the City for its review and approval prior to recording. The document must be recorded with Carver County prior to commencing the exempt activity. Additionally, a copy of the recorded document should be submitted to the City at least two business days prior to commencing the exempt activity. 3, This activity mayor may not be considere.d exempt by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, The applicant should acquire all necessary approvals from the Anny Corps of Engineers prior to commencing the proposed acti vi ty. 4. The activity must comply with Section 20-416 of Chanhassen City Code regarding \ovetland exemptions (enclosed). :; ~ .J,," :; ,,'>1l):; U J~',t.~ - T~2~ :)i~'~~~ ", " S. The activity, especially the activity proposed on Site 4, should not modify existing hydrology on adjacent properties. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227- 1135 or Ihaal\@ci,chanhasscn,lnnLls. Sincerely, ~1;;/ Lori Baak Water Resources COOl'di nator Enclosures cc: Ben Meyer, Bonestroo Greg Graczyk, Carver SWCD Brad Wozney, BWSR g.\eng\lori\wctlands\exemptions\dorsey cover letter doc , { ./ r Min Il~SO t~1 R p ks T,illI.f::_9[(;b;lpt crs Tahle of' C~llt~Dts I'm Cb,lpl\:'1' 8420 8420.0115 SCOPE OF EXEMPTION STANDARDS. Persons proposing to conduct an exempt activity are encouraged to contact the local government unit or the local government unit's designee for advice on determining whether a proposed project is eligible for an exemption and to evaluate alternatives to avoid or minimize wetland impacts. An activity is exempt if it qualifies for anyone of the exemptions, even though it may be indicated as not exempt under another exemption. These exemptions do not apply to calcareous fens as identified by the commissioner. No exemptions apply to wetlands that have been previously restored or created as a result of an approved replacement plan. All such wetlands are subject to replacement on subsequent drainage, excavation, or filling. Wetlands may not be partially drained, excavated, or filled in order to claim an exemption or no-loss determination on the remainder. Therefore, no exemptions or no-loss determinations can be applied to the remaining wetland that would not have been applicable before the impact. Exemptions may not be combined on a wetland that is impacted by a project. ~ Present and future owners of wetlands drained or filled without replacement under an exemption in part ~~.2.0l22, subparts 1 and 2, item B, can make no use of the wetland area after it is drained, excavated, or filled, other than as ~gricultural land, for ten years after the draining, excavating, or fil' nless it is first re laced under the requirements o Minnesota Statutes, section lQl~.222. Also, for ten years the wetland may not be restored for replacement credit. Except for land in public ownership, at the time of draining, excavation, or filling, the landowner shall record a notice of these restrictions in the office of the county recorder for the county in which the project is located. At a minimum, the recorded document must contain the name or names of the lando~mers, a legal description of the property to which the restrictions apply, a statement of the restrictions, the date on which the ten-year period expires, the name of the local government which certified the exemption, if such occurred, the signatures of all owners, and an acknowledgment. A person conducting an activity in a wetland under an exemption in part .f34~_O_,-012.1 shall ensure that: A, appropriate erosion control measures are taken to prevent sedimentation of the water; B. the activity does not block fish activity in a watercourse; and http://\o\'ww.n:visor.leg,state.mn.lls/arlllc/8420/011:),htm! 4/4/2UU7 C. the activitY is conducted in COHlpliance with all uther applicable federal, state, and local requirements, including best management practices as listed in part ~j20,Ol12, and water resource protection requirements established under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103H. STAT AUTH, MS s 14'.J:l_~; lQJB.10l; LQ}~.33SS; 103G"~?_~~ HIST: 18 SR 274; 22 SR 1877; 25 SR 152; 27 SR 135 Current as of 06/15/06 http://wvvw.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/8420/01]).html -1./-:1-/2007 , .. .,.' Sec. 20-416. Exemptions. Activities exempted by Minnesota Rules 8420,0122 shall be exempted from the provisions of this ordinance. However, certificates of exemption must be obtained from the city prior to starting work. A person conducting an activity in a wetland under an exemption in part 8420.0122 shall ensure that: (a) Appropriate erosion control measures are taken to prevent sedimentation of the water; (b) The activity does not block fish activity in a watercourse; and (c) The activity is conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state, and local requirements, including best management practices as listed in part 8420.0112, and water resource protection requirements established under M.S, ch. 103H. (Ord. No. 180, ~ 1, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, ~ 9, 4-25-94; Ord. No. 377, ~ 48, 5-24-04) h tlp:1 I] j brary2 ,municodecom/mcc/Doc Viewl 140481 1/1 ] 41 135 4/4/2007 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone 952,227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone 952.227.1180 Fax 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227,1160 Fax 952.227.1170 Finance Phone 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone 952.227.1400 Fax 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 952.2271300 Fax 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952,227.1125 Fax 952.227.1110 Web Site www.cl.chanhassen.mn.us To: Greg Graczyk, Carver SWCD Brad Wozney, BWSR Bob Obermeyer, RPBCWD Kate Drewry, D NR Joe Yanta, COE Mike North, DNR Rick Dorsey, Dorsey & Dorsey Fox Properties, LP Jeff and Terri Fox Ben Meyer, Bonestroo 'I Loli Haak, City of Chanhassen 9AJ From: Date: April 12, 2007 Re: Dorsey, Fox and Fox LP Exemptions As you may recall, the City of Chanhassen's decisions regarding the above exemptions included Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact that were signed only by me. Enclosed please find signed copies of the Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact for the Dorsey, Fox and Fox LP Wetland Exemptions signed by all 3 TEP members. Please keep these in your files for future reference. The City 01 Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools. a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act" ' :T~chnical Eval~ation Panel Findings of Fact . , '(l "~, _~ W~ ~. >' I, .' " " - Dal~:;\pIi16. 20D? LCiU: City ofChanlwssen Coullty: Carvcr l GLI Contncl:Lori Haak. W;ner Resources Coordinator Project Namdt::[)orscv WeIland Exemption Phone If: 952.127.1135 Lm:ation ol'Projeel: NW ~ 23 116N 1.1., 1,4 V:, See Twp City: Chanhasscll Coullty: Carver rEI' Members (and others) who reviewed [lmjecI: (Check If ';':\\'<:11 plqicCI site) [8J LGU:Lori Haak [8J 13WSR:l3rud Wozney [8J SWCD: Gre!! Graczyk D DNR (Ii arrliL1\blc):_ Other Wethmd Expcrts present: None. 'I EP rcqucsled by: LOU 23W R,mge lOl/B lock I ypc of '1'L;,P dcterminalilln rcqllcslcd (, IWI k /11,,,. ,11(11 /I{'I'II): :i [,emption (WeA Exemplion !tEl _ Wetland BUlIndary ami J'ypc Nn-LIISS __~__ Replacemcnl Plan 2 I)\:SI;I i!)[IOII ol' \Velluml(s) II ilh prujJ<lscd impact: (sc,~;I\1"ehcd) a Wetland Type (Circular 39) (Co\\':lrdinl_ b. \Vctland Size c. Size o! Proposed Impm;t (,I<.:le, and squale I'eet) 3.52 acres (15.tJ.~ 1 Sl'l Have scqllem:ing requirements hCl:n met! Attach Sequcncing Finding of Facl as SlIpp\llting information D Ycs D Nil (if 111.\. list wl1v) n/a .t Is the pIlIjClt consistent \\ill1 the intent III the llll11prl:hl!nsivc lllcal water plan and/or the watcr"hed disuicl plan. the I11clm]Jl)1 itan sur t :tel.: watel managemcnt plan alllllll<.:IIll[JI \1 i 1:111 gn lundwalclll1anagl:melH plan. and local compll:hcnsi \Ie plan and wning ordinancl.:'? DYes 0 No (if no, lislwhy) n!a 5 How willlhc project affect the following wetland !unctions: Funcliolls Impact Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Rceh;lI gc Low Flow Augmentation AeSlhel ics/Hccreali\>Il Shor eland i\m:holing Wlldhk Habiwl Fishel ies Habitat Rare Plant! Animal H,lbitnt Commercial Uses n/a No Impact Impnll'e 6 For rcpl,lceJl1cnt [llan or no-loss determinations. an: wetland functions maintnined at nn equal 01 greater leyeP DYes D No (if no, list why) n/a 7 Docs T \;chnicill Evaluation Panel recoll1lllcnd :lp[lmval of the activity plOposcd in item U (see :Illaehed) DYes 0 Yes I~ilh Condition,; 0 N\ll il n,), list why) II' Ill). \111)" 8 L.ist TEl' findings to support rc<.:ommcndalion in question 7 above (see aunched) 9 (I),Ilt:) I>NH J{q1[cscl\t~[i\'c P:lgl I nr I I hll:;l,'.' fEP f:il1lJill~:-- Ill' 1::1\'1 doc I \l'lil ~1I11~1 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact Date:April 6, 2007 LGU: City of Chanhassen County: Caryer LGU Contact:Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Project Name/#:Dorsey Wetland Exemption Phone #: 952,227.1135 Location of Project: NW ~ 23 116N 23W 1/4 1/4 1/4 Sec. Twp. Range Lot/Block City: Chanhassen County: Carver TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) ~ LGU:Lori Haak ~ BWSR:Brad WOzney ~ SWCD: Greg Graczyk D DNR (if applicable):_ Other Wetland Experts present: None, TEP requested by: LGU 1. Type of TEP determination requested (check those that apply): ~ Exemption (WCA Exemption #.lA) _ Wetland Boundary and Type No-Loss Replacement Plan 2. Description ofWetland(s) with proposed impact: (see attached) a. Wetland Type (Circular 39) (Cowardin)_ b. Wetland Size c. Size of Proposed Impact (acres and square feet) 3,52 acres (153,331 sf) 3. Have sequencing requirements been met? Attach Sequencing Finding of Fact as supporting information. DYes D No (if no, list why) n/a 4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? DYes D No (if no, list why) n/a 5. How will the project affect the following wetland functions: Functions Impact Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation Aesthetics/Recreation Shore land Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Rare Plant/Animal Habitat Commercial Uses n/a No Impact Improve 6. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? DYes D No (if no, list why) n/a 7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item I? (see attached) DYes DYes, with Conditions D No (if no, list why) If no, why? 8. List TEP findings to support recommendation in question 7 above. (see attached) 9. SIGNATURES (ifTEP recommendation is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page) BWSR Representative (Date) DNR Representative Page 1 of 1 (Date) Dorsey TEP Findings of Fact.doe (April 2003) Dorsey Wetland Exenlption TEP Findings of Fact April 6, 2007 Attachment 2. Description of Wetland(s) with proposed impact: . Site 1: Type 3 with a Type 2 fringe; 2.0 acres on subject property (3.3 acres total) . Site 2: Type 1; 0.96 acres . Site 3: Type 2; 0.39 acres . Site 4: Type 2; 0.17 acres on subject property (1.34 acres total) 7. Does the Technical Evaluation Panel recommend Approval of Activity proposed in item 1 ? . Site 1: No. . Site 2: Yes. . Site 3: No. . Site 4: Yes. 8. List TEP findings to support recommendation in question 7 above. . TEP members from the LGU and the Carver SWCD conducted an on-site review on March 22, 2007. . Site 1: The aerial photographs from 1981 to 1986 show a change in the cropping pattern around the apparent wetland edge that do not support the argument that the area "was planted with annually seeded crops or was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991." Additionally, thc affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19,2007) states that "Site #1 was in hayland and was mechanically harvested in the years 1981-1986." This is not an annually seeded crop or a rotation of pasture grass or legumes. Also, a portion of this wetland is not Type 1 or Type 2 wetland. . Site 2: The aerial photographs from 1981 to 1986 show that the area was annually seeded with crops. Additionally, the affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19,2007) supports this finding. . Site 3: The affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19,2007) states that "Site #3 was pasture and soybeans in the years 1981-1986." However, the aerial photographs from 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1990 show changes in vegetation management around the apparent wetland edge that do not support the argument that the area "was planted with annually seeded crops or was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991." Several of the photos (1981, 1988) are not clear enough to draw conclusions regarding the crop history in and around Site 3. Therefore it cannot be conclusively determined that that the area "was planted with annually seeded crops or was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991." . Site 4: The affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19,2007) states that "Site #4 was planted in row crops of sweet com and soybeans in the years 1981-1986." The aerial photographs from 1981 to 1991 show that Site 4 was planted in row crops six of ten years prior to 1991. . All exempt wetlands will be subject to the 10 year deed recording requirements set forth in MR 8420.0115. A TT ACHMENTS 1. Aerial photographs, 1981 through 1986 2. Affidavit of landowner, signed March 19,2007 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Certificate of Mailing of Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision Name and address of local govemment unit:City of Chanhassen - 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 - Chanhassen, MN 55317 The undersigned certifies on April 6, 2007 , Lori Haak he/she mailed copies of the attached Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision to the addressees listed thereon by depositing the same in the United States Mail in the City of Chanhassen , County of Carver and State of Minnesota, properly enveloped with prepaid first class postage. t3!0/J-P- Signature April 6,2007 Date Water Resources Coordinator Title Page I of I Dorsey Cerl Mail Notice Decision,doc (April 2003) > . Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision Name and Address of Local Government Unit: City of Chanhassen - 7700 Market Boulevard -P.O. Box 147 - Chanhassen, MN 55317 Name of Applicant: Dorsey & Dorsey Project Name: Dorsey Wetland Exemption Application Number: n/a Type of Application (check one): [2J Exemption Decision o No Loss Decision o Replacement Plan Decision D Banking Plan Decision o Wetland Type/Boundary Decision Date of Decision: April 6, 2007 Check One: [8J Approved (Sites 2 and 4) o Approved with conditions [8J Denied (Sites 1 and 3) Suinmary of ProjecUDecision (indicate exemption number per MN Rule 8420.0122, if applicable): 1A The applicant requested exemptions for Sites #1-4 on the property in the NW % of the SW 14 of Section 23, Township 116N, Range 23W in Carver County, Minnesota. Based on the findings of the Technical Evaluation Panel (Attachment 1), dated April 6, 2007, the City of Chanhassen denies the exemption requests for Sites 1 and 3. Based on the findings of the Technical Evaluation Panel (Attachment 1), dated April 6, 2007, the City of Chanhassen approves the exemption requests for Sites 2 and 4. List of Addressees: Landowner: Dorsey & Dorsey, c/o Rick Dorsey, 14215 Greenview Court, Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Members of Technical Evaluation Panel: Greg Graczyk, Carver SWCD Brad Wozney, BWSR Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization (If Applicable): Bob Obermeyer, RPBCWD Page I of2 Department of Natural Resources Regional Office (select appro riate office): NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Regional Director Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Eco!' Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. NE Div. Ecol. Services Div. Ecol. Services Div. Ecol. Services Bemidji, MN 56601 1201 E. Hwy. 2 1200 Warner Road 261 Hwy. 15 South Grand Rapids, MN 55744 St. Paul, MN 55106 New DIm, MN 56073 DNR Representative Kate Drewry, Area Hydrologist Corp of Engineers Project Manager Joe Yanta, ACOE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District ATTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 Individual members of the public who requested a copy, summary only: Ben Meyer, Bonestroo Jeff Fox You are hereby notified that the decision of the Local Government Unit on the above- referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions is attached. Pursuant to Minn. R. 8420.0250 any appeal of the decision must be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice. THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Additional approvals or permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be requ.ired. Check with all appropriate au.thorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. LOCALGO~ ~ April 6, 2007 Date Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Name and Title Attachments: 1. Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, dated April 6, 2007 Page 2 of2 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact Date:April 6, 2007 LGU: City of Chanhassen County: Carver LGU Contact:Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Project Name/#:Dorse-v Wetland Exemption Phone #: 952.227 .1135 Location of Project: NW SW 23 116N 23W 14 ~ ~ Sec. Twp. Range LotfBlock City: Chanhassen County: Carver TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) [8J LGU:Lori Haak lZl BWSR:Brad Wozney [8J SWCD: Greg Graczyk 0 DNR (ifaRplicable):_ Other WetIand Experts present: None. TEP requested by: LGU 1. Type of TEP determination requested (check those that apply): ~ Exemption (WCA Exemption # lA) _ Wetland Boundary and Type No-Loss Replacement Plan 2. Description ofWetland(s) with proposed impact: (see attached) a. Wetland Type (Circular 39) (Cowardin)_ b. Wetland Size c. Size of Proposed Impact (acres and square feet) 3.52 acres (153,331 sf) 3. Have sequencing requirements been met? Attach Sequencing Finding of Fact as supporting information. . DYes 0 No (if no, list why) nfa 4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? DYes D No (if no, list why) nfa 5. How will the project affect the following wetland functions: Functions Impact Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation Aesthetics/Recreation Shoreland Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Rare Plant! Animal Habitat Commercial Uses nfa No Impact Improve 6. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? DYes 0 No (if no, list why) nfa 7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item I? (see attached) DYes 0 Yes, with Conditions 0 No (if no, list why) If no, why? 8. List TEP findings to support recommendation in question 7 above. (see attached) 9. SIGNATURES (ifTEP recommendation is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and exvlain on the back of this page) liiE~ GU Representative (Date) 1/6/07 ( ate){ BW~ AdJi.h V(l ~\ te) ~3r\cLtu res, e) iDQn 11 0 v0 ~ ,d~ DNF Page 1 of Dorsey TEP Findings of FacLdoc Dorsey Wetland Exemption TEP Findings of Fact April 6, 2007 Attachment 2. Description of Wetland(s) with proposed impact: . Site 1: Type 3 with a Type 2 fringe; 2.0~_acres on subject property (3.3 acres total) · Site 2: Type 1; 0.96 acres · Site 3: Type 2; 0.39 acres . Site 4: Type 2; 0.17 acres on subject property (1.34 acres total) 7. Does the Technical Evaluation Panel recommend Approval of Activity proposed in item 1 ? . Site 1: No. · Site 2: Yes. · Site 3: No. · Site 4: Yes. 8. List TEP findings to support recommendation in question 7 above. . TEP members from the LGU and the Carver SWCD conducted an on-site review on March 22, 2007. . Site 1: The aerial photographs from 1981 to 1986 show a change in the cropping pattern around the apparent wetland edge that do not support the argument that the area "was planted with annually seeded crops or was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991." Additionally, the affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19, 2007) states that "Site #1 was in hayland and was mechanically harvested in the years 1981-1986." This is not an annually seeded crop or a rotation of pasture grass or legumes. Also, a portion of this wetland is not Type 1 or Type 2 wetland. · Site 2: The aerial photographs from 1981 to 1986 show that the area was annually seeded with crops. Additionally, the affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19,2007) supports this finding. · Site 3: The affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19,2007) states that "Site #3 was pasture and soybeans in the years 1981-1986." However, the aerial photographs from 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1990 show changes in vegetation management around the apparent wetland edge that do not support the argument that the area "was planted with annually seeded crops or was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991." Several of the photos (1981, 1988) are not clear enough to draw conclusions regarding the crop history in and around Site 3. Therefore it cannot be conclusively determined that that the area "was planted with annually seeded crops or was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991." · Site 4: The affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19,2007) states that "Site #4 was planted in row crops of sweet corn and soybeans in the years 1981-1986." The aerial photographs from 1981 to 1991 show that Site 4 was planted in row crops six of ten years prior to 1991. . All exempt wetlands will be subject to the 10 year deed recording requirements set forth in MR 8420.0115. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial photographs, 1981 through 1986 2. Affidavit oflandowner, signed March 19,2007 7700 Markel Bou!evard PO Box 147 Chanhassell Mi\155317 Administration Phone 952.227.1100 Fax 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.11 SO Fax 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone 952.227.1'160 Fax 952.227.1170 Finance P!,one 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone 952.227.1120 Fax 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone 952.2271400 Fax 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952.2271130 Fax 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phor:e: 952.227,1300 Fax 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phore 952.227.1125 Fax 952.227.1110 Web Site wiiw,ci,chanhassen, mn. us The City of Chanhassen 0 A April 6, 2007 Dorsey & Dorsey c/o Rick Dorsey 14215 Greenview COUlt Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Re: Wetland Exemption Application Dear Mr. Dorsey: Enclosed please find the City's decision, as LGU for the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, regarding your recent wetland exemption application. Please bear in mind that the proposed activity must comply with provisions of the Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, as well as thc regulations of any other applicable jurisdictions. Specifically: 1. A permit from the City of Chanhassen must be obtained for all excavating, mining, filling, and grading operations in excess of 50 cubic yards. Permits for excavating, mining, filling, and grading more than 50 cubic yards, but less than 1,000 cubic yards of material in a 12-month period are processed administratively. Permits for excavating, mining, filling, and grading of 1,000 cubic yards of material or more in a 12-month period are processed in the same manner as an interim use permit and require approval by the Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council. 2. This exemption is subject to the 10 year deed recording requirement in MR 8420.0115. A document meeting the minimum requirements of MR 8420.0115 (enclosed) must be provided to the City for its review and approval prior to recording. The document must be recorded with Carver County prior to commencing the exempt activity. Additionally, a copy of the recorded document should be submitted to the City at least two business days prior to commencing the exempt activity. 3. This activity mayor may not be considered exempt by the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant should acquire all necessary approvals from the Army Corps of Engineers prior to commencing the proposed activity. 4. The activity must comply with Section 20-416 of Chanhassen City Code regarding wetland exemptions (enclosed). '.'.'ilh clean lakes. quaiity schne!s. 3 hUSII1cSSCS tral!S, arid t,eauliful A great 1.0 live, work. ami plav d 0::11 I 0'1111 , 5. The actIvity, especially the activity proposed on Site 4, should not modify existing hydrology on adjacent properties. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227- 1135 or lhaak@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, CITy.o,F CH~NHASSEN ,/./! .,' , /'j/ " / ..\/t'" ': .i ! ' f i I LOl-i Haak Water Resources Coordinator Enclosures cc: Ben Meyer, Bonestroo Greg Graczyk, Carver SWCD Brad Wozney, BWSR g:\eng\lori\wetlands\exemptions\dorsey cover letter.doc Minnesota Rule 8420.0115 Page 1 of 2 Minnesota Rules, Table of ChaQters Table of contents for ChaptcLS4:20 8420.0115 SCOPE OF EXEMPTION STANDARDS. Persons proposing to conduct an exempt activity are encouraged to contact the local government unit or the local government unit's designee for advice on determining whether a proposed project is eligible for an exemption and to evaluate alternatives to avoid or minimize wetland impacts. An activity is exempt if it qualifies for anyone of the exemptions, even though it may be indicated as not exempt under another exemption. These exemptions do not apply to calcareous fens as identified by the commissioner. No exemptions apply to wetlands that have been previously restored or created as a result of an approved replacement plan. All such wetlands are subject to replacement on subsequent drainage, excavation, or filling. Wetlands may not be partially drained, excavated, or filled in order to claim an exemption or no-loss determination on the remainder. Therefore, no exemptions or no-loss determinations can be applied to the remaining wetland that would not have been applicable before the impact. Exemptions may not be combined on a wetland that is impacted by a project. Present and future owners of wetlands drained or filled without replacement under an exemption in part ~20.0122, subparts 1 and 2, item B, can make no use of the wetland area after it is drained, excavated, or filled, other than as agricultural land, for ten years after the draining, excavating, or filling, unless it is first replaced under the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.222. Also, for ten years the wetland may not be restored for replacement credit. Except for land in public ownership, at the time of draining, excavation, or filling, the landowner shall record a notice of these restrictions in the office of the county recorder for the county in which the project is located. At a minimum, the recorded document must contain the name or names of the landowners, a legal description of the property to which the restrictions apply, a statement of the restrictions, the date on which the ten-year period expires, the name of the local government which certified the exemption, if such occurred, the signatures of all owners, and an acknowledgment. A person conducting an activity in a wetland under an exemption in part 8420.0122 shall ensure that: A. appropriate erosion control measures are taken to prevent sedimentation of the water; B. the activity does not block fish activity In a watercourse; and http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/8420/0 115 .html 4/4/2007 Minnesut~ Rule 8420.01 L5 Page 2 of 2 C. the nrtivity is conducted in compliance with all other applicable tederal, state, and local requirements, including best management practices as listed in part 8420.0112, and water resource protection requirements established under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103H. STAT AUTH: MS s 14.06; 1033.101; 1033.3355; 103G.2242 HIST: 18 SR 274; ~2 SR 1877; 25 SR 152; 27 SR 135 Current as of 06/15106 /I ~._nu~_u'__" L_ _.~.~ __ ..~/~....l~/OA"'{\I{\ll c:: ht~l L1lL1nn()7 ARTICLE VI. WETLAND PROTECTION* Page ] of 1 Sec. 20-416. Exemptions. Activities exempted by Minnesota Rules 8420.0122 shall be exempted from the provisions of this ordinance. However, certificates of exemption must be obtained from the city prior to starting work. A person conducting an activity in a wetland under an exemption in part 8420.0122 shall ensure that: (a) Appropriate erosion control measures are taken to prevent sedimentation of the water; (b) The activity does not block fish activity in a watercourse; and (c) The activity is conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state, and local requirements, including best management practices as listed in part 8420.0112, and water resource protection requirements established under M.S. ch. 103H. (Ord. No. 180, S 1,12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, S 9,4-25-94; Ord. No. 377, S 48,5-24-04) http://library2.municode.comlmcc/DocView/14048/1/114/135 4/4/2007 "IT01J~[fu~~~@ili]@illl(Q]@:o)[f1J~~iID@)[ru~{i:';,i;)i:!" ~_1:@tI'1%J@iID~.@@cru@@~\lQ)@\~'.~h Name and Address of Local GOYfJrnllmewt Unli\\:: City of Chanhassen - 7700 Market Boulevard -P,O. Box 147 - Chanhassen. MN 55317 Name of Applkmllt: Dorsey & Dorsey Project Name: Dorsey Wetland Exemption AppHcatfton Nmlllllber: n/a Type of AppHcaHon (check one): [ZJ Exemption Decision o No Loss Decision o Replacement Plan Decision o Banking Plan Decision o Wetland Type/Boundary Decision Date of Dedsfton: April 6, 2007 Cillleck One: ~ Approved (Sites 2 and 4) o Approved with conditions [ZJ Denied (Sites 1 and 3) Summary of Projedillecision (indicate exemption number per MN Rule 8420,0122, if applicable): 1A The applicant requested exemptions for Sites #1-4 on the property in the NW 114 of the SW 114 of Section 23, Township 116N, Range 23W in Carver County, Minnesota. Based on the findings of the Technical Evaluation Panel (Attachment 1), dated April 6, 2007, the City of Chanhassen denies the exemption requests for Sites 1 and 3. Based on the findings of the Technical Evaluation Panel (Attachment 1), dated April 6, 2007, the City of Chanhassen approves the exemption requests for Sites 2 and 4. List of Addressees: Landowner: Dorsey & Dorsey, c/o Rick Dorsey, 14215 Greenview COUlt, Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Members of Technical Evaluation Panel: Greg Graczyk, Carver SWCD Brad W ozney, BWSR Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization (If Applicable): Bob Obermeyer, RPBCWD Page 1 of2 Department of Natural Resources Regional Office (select appropriate office): NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Regional Director Reg, Env, Assess. Ecol. Reg, Env, Assess, Ecol. Reg, Env, Assess. Ecol. 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd, NE Div, Ecol. Services Div, Ecol. Services Div, Ecol. Services Bemidji, MN 56601 1201 E, Hwy. 2 1200 Warner Road 261 Hwy. 15 South Grand Rapids, MN 55744 51. Paul. MN 55106 New Ulm, MN 56073 DNR Representative Kate Drewry, Area Hydrologist Corp of Engineers Project Manager Joe Yanta, ACOE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District ATTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 Individual members of the public who requested a copy, summary only: Ben Meyer, Bonestroo Jeff Fox You are hereby notified that the decision of the Local Government Unit on the above- referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions is attached. Pursuant to Minn. R. 8420.0250 any appeal of the decision must be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice. THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO the Minnesota Wetland Conselwttion Act. Additional approvals or permits from local, state, andfederal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. LOCAL GOVER I>~~- Al:Jril 6, 2007 Date Loti Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Name and Title Attachments: 1. Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, dated April 6, 2007 Page 2 01'2 Date:April 6, 2007 LGU: City of Chanhassen County: Carver LGU Contact:Lori Haak. Water Resources Coordinator Project Name/#:Dorsey Wetland Exemption Phone #: 952,227.1135 Location of Project: NW SW 23 116N 23W II,j 1/4 1/4 Sec. Twp. Range Lot/Block City: Chanhassen County: Carver TEP Members (and others) who reviewecl project: (Check if viewed project site; [8J LGU:Lori Haak ~ BWSRBrad Woznev [8J SWCD: Greg Graczyk 0 DNR (if applic~ble):_ Other Wetland Experts present: None, TEP requestecl by: LGU 1. Type of TEP determination requested 2i Exemption (\VCA Exemption #JA) _ Wetland Boundary and Type rhose 117m apply): No-Loss Replacement Plan 2. Description of Wetland(s) with proposed impact: (see attached) a, Wetland Type (Circular 39) (Cowardin)_ b, Wetland Size c, Size of Proposed Impact (acres and square feet) 3,52 acres (153.331 sf) 3, Have sequencing requirements been met? Attach Sequencing Finding of Fact as supporting information, DYes 0 No (if no, list why) n/a 4, Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan imd metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? DYes D No (if no, list why) n/a 5. How will the project affect the following wetland functions: Functions Impact Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation AestheticsIRecreation Shoreland Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Rare Plant/ Animal Habitat Commercial Uses n/a No Impact Improve 6. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? DYes 0 No (if no, list why) n/a 7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item l? (see attached) DYes DYes, with Conditions D No (if no, list why) If no, why? 8. List TEP findings to support recommendation in question 7 above. (see attached) 9, SIGNATURES (ifTEP recommendation is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and exvlaill Oil thf' back of this page) SWCD R~presentativl\ . ::'..'r':(}/~(.>' ..~. t . "~, '.~ .,," .,1 ':_TGUi Rep~esent~iive (Date) BW~ hJd; C.(ll~\ te) .:.../ /' i /' (:"~ . (~~t~)/ DNF c\' lj" (\ C\..j'J /_. , ('\ ' -11, L,. I II l' ell i l, \ Iv ..' / .. e) Page 1 of Dorsey TEP Findmgs of Fact.doc -'"i'; r) Dorsey Wetland Exemption TEP Findings of Fact April 6, 2007 Attachment 2. Description of Wetland(s) with proposed impact: . Site 1: Type 3 with a Type 2 fringe; 2.0 acres on subject property (3.3 acres total) . Site 2: Type 1; 0.96 acres . Site 3: Type 2; 0.39 acres . Site 4: Type 2; 0.17 acres on subject propelty (1.34 acres total) 7. Does the Technical Evaluation Panel recommend Approval of Activity proposed in item 1 ? . Site 1: No. . Site 2: Yes. . Site 3: No. . Site 4: Yes. 8. List TEP findings to support recommendation in question 7 above. . TEP members from the LGU and the Carver SWCD conducted an on-site review on March 22, 2007. . Site 1: The aerial photographs from 1981 to 1986 show a change in the cropping pattern around the apparent wetland edge that do not support the argument that the area "was planted with annually seeded crops or was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991." Additionally, the affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19, 2007) states that "Site #1 was in hayland and was mechanically harvested in the years 1981-1986." This is not an annually seeded crop or a rotation of pasture grass or legumes. Also, a pOltion of this wetland is not Type 1 or Type 2 wetland. . Site 2: The aelial photographs from 1981 to 1986 show that the area was annually seeded with crops. Additionally, the affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19,2007) supports this finding. . Site 3: The affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19,2007) states that "Site #3 was pasture and soybeans in the years 1981-1986." However, the aerial photographs from 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1990 show changes in vegetation management around the apparent wetland edge that do not support the argument that the area "was planted with annually seeded crops or was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991." Several of the photos (1981, 1988) are not clear enough to draw conclusions regarding the crop history in and around Site 3. Therefore it cannot be conclusively determined that that the area "was planted with annually seeded crops or was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991." . Site 4: The affidavit supplied by the landowner (signed March 19,2007) states that "Site #4 was planted in row crops of sweet corn and soybeans in the years 1981-1986." The aerial photographs from 1981 to 1991 show that Site 4 was planted in row crops six of ten years prior to 1991. o All exempt wetlands will be subject to the 10 year deed recording requirements set forth in MR 8420.01] 5. A TT A CHMJENTS 1. Aerial photographs, 1981 through 1986 2. Affidavit of landowner, signed March 19, 2007 March 12, 2007 City of Chanhassen Attn: Lori Haak 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Dorsey WCA Ag. Exemption Application Ms. Haak, Enclosed are the FSA aerial photos from 1981 to 1986 that pertain to the WCA Agricultural Exemption for the Dorsey property. These photos are provided as a supplement to the original application and provide documentation as outlined in Minnesota Rule 8420.0122, Subpart 1 A. Please feel free to contact me at 651-604-4767 or ben.meyer@bonestroo.com if you have any questions regarding these supplemental materials. Sincerely, ~~~. Benjamin L. Meyer Certified Wetland Delineator Sr. Wetland Scientist Cc: Rick Dorsey Greg Graczyk - Carver SWCD Brad Wozney - BWSR ... 2335 Highway 36 W St, Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651.636-1311 www.bonestroo.com .tt Bonestroo WETLAND SITE REVIEW - 1981 FIGURE 1 ~~ ~~ Bonestroo ~~.~"""="".~~----_._---- , . -,...- ~~ 1:\2\207024\Cad\Dwg\Wettand Review.dwg 1961 FSA AERIAL PHOTO ..I~-E :ZI, ~ .'.-d" s MARCH 1 2. 2007 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION .c.~~~. J'" If',,,,, .. ;' .:..[..,... - :-.'. '~' ,- '",-;(l" j\, ~" ~''''-~~ ; oio!l .4 .:. .';a.: ,,- 'f. , ' ... ~' ,..J ,.-.~--"-~ ,', "',' ~ :P, .. , #- , ! "':' \ .... 'I OJ if '=~ ..,,-..- '-'::"~~'" LYMAN BLVD - '. " ;II' ".~ ~:~".. ""~.'. ,p'--"~, " "1,.;; ~; -,;"*':' -.... -, -.... ._~ il'J~I'~'. .:f,\,." ~ ~;'~i, .1;1:'''' ,. - '=;-. ~ . "," ~........." . 'f ~ ~, ~.~;:~~-Y_. ~~ .. >"f _, ~ ~. ..:,. ". 1- ,r .~ '~~. :. 'W ".. .., ~:a.- ., ,y',J .... .;;'31, '..; .10.< ~ ';"1- .i- ~,--' '" ,. 'ifr::.,..~i ,"~ ...i: ,-,~, t, -:}.: , .., ~'.~... .~~.~ ~ ".:<.- ~... \"'- - I ..t~ 'H .~. ~t ~ S.., ." ~. -,. ,,'!J,""- "'" '...-: \, . .r :~. ::- ~ -~ a ;~,: ':...'< . X' -'~\ ,.,,;.~ ~ WETLAND SITE REVIEW 1982 FIGURE 2 .. Bonestroo 1:\2\207024\Cad\Owg\Wetland Review.dwg 1 982 FSA AERIAL PHOTO .' s MARCH 12. 2007 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION ~ ~ ..-~ -~~f>i' ~ " J;;;.,~ '-i .~~...( .....~, ~ ,~~.(~ ~ ~" .t, ~ -"'. .... - .... .........-- .~,." .--.-, ~r: ..,.. .,..~ .;t;~t)"~:" ", .. ~ ........" .... --.... ~ .~~,~ ~-= ~ -J-,':" ,~,. f .~...:A.;. " ... ....;.--1; 1~.it c "", ~~ ,. \ ~ I I ~ ~ , \ ~, ~~; ~Jo: .,"~ L :i.~ .... 1l!i't&.. -: __, ,-', ~ "';..~a ltv~' d" -~ '" ~ ~......--- . - '" .." .' ;,"'(~~ " .''',is ~:. )O,f: ''''<r - I ~ (7-- ~. '.""'f.;jC ",,~ 6i "'JiiII" J t "' I'~ ~ J :< r I I . I" ~ ~ I I i" '" J f " . III ri" ~ Ii ~~ .;;. ":t' .""4":0 ;~ .!rt~, ~. Ie. ,.... l!:~ . ';f. .:~ tJ "t :'/1 ~' .... ., II ..; l I if_ ;:. ~ .. .?-.. "" .\ iV' ~ -'i' , .ri.'!& ll.lt; it" "il.,::i <'.'. ,- '1. :i>.:..:.;' ~::o!"- I.:::;.... ... ,., . :t _!~Ij. .~: ;"i. !> ,,", ~ 'J:!:;, ~..:, l' ~~]~ ~: M.~~ "~ ,,' .~! ~ 'l).'1.',' ~~ "t.~ ,1'.l'~D ~~ -:t ..;:or, '~':tr--c~ G" " . 7~ ~~ p :;. '" '1 i+~c i!' ~,~ J, .f.l: ~ ;,'t~.~ :;, ~. 't;~ ~mm ~ ~ ~<; '" .~ ~'M ..;t. c::~ ~}~ ~ "'~. . _-. ~ 4,:'(-" ,..."=' '"' ;[I <<;; ~ ';"':<:' t '!"'~ ~ 'ill ~ ~4; ~~,. r'i iJ " ~ "E '" JI .~ ~,. " ~"'" I:P:' ~~ :M WETLAND SITE REVIEW 1983 FIGURE 3 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION 1:\2\207024\Cad\Owg\Wetland Review.dwg LYMAN BLVD ~ 1 , .:t,,' "" <t ';. ,j, ,~ '#~~ ,r ",!, ,.-'! ).' ,f'; P.;t., ~-- ~.r; ~, .to ,. .. ~,:~ ,.: ~' !.. ~ '"~ .. :1. ...' ~ ,. ..:I~ "'~l~> .~ .,."';(, or.! ~ ~ tf.,.ft ~ :..'" ~ k.' ),' tt:-tJ.' ~ ~.. '.').' .. ~ ,l:.' f, ;.,; I!:! a r " .~ -,,; ;':,i 1 963 FSA AERIAL PHOTO .;,:U1- ,;,~;- . .-rl -:.... !' ~f. ~ ;~ q, o > ..J CD M ~(I? 0:::' UJ ~ o a. ~ ~~ -;,' ~ 'to .~~ .r i:~...:f: ~ ;.:, '11 '. 'I ... ~..~ ':I ~,!Ii ~..." ~).'1''t~ l <:! ..' ~ ~...~ bl ;j'" f?' - ...........,....-- Il: ~ r;.. ~ I!:I ~'i.t. JJ ~~~ ~ p- ~ .,. ~if . '? ~ ~ ~ " p...... = f:. -ii .. "" MARCH 1 2. 2007 _ -'-....... ...... . ~. .. - . .. ~ r . . \J . I ... , " ,,", ,"\, ~ .... - . . 1~1(~ , 'il ' ..... " ~. 4i~i" Af':"l, , .#' ~ f \ ," "'~~J"~: . ,:l'il' >?i : " "'" i ; ~ * .j ~~ -- ~~'~~ ~ ~,f- '\; ..,.' ........;: l:i WETLAND SITE REVIEW - 1984 . . " , . "\ '1it. \ '~'1~:~~ .. ...... ~t..a <tr <Y.~ .#. " ~.. .. #:~t ~ FIGURE 4 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION 1:\2\207024\Cad\Owg\Wetland Review,dwg 1984 FSA AERIAL PHOTO .' s --l .', ..." ~ "l t. ...... ". :~ '\' t . -l t 1 r r'o' . ~ .' , ~ . "'~~ ., C -...---.. "'"""'"" - - '?,. _J. ';1 .-1'"", ,",' ... ~, w!.. 'f-fr 6;;- ". .{ ..la- 1~ Bonestroo MARCH 1 2. 2007 -.,.......,....-~.)I(.~ lI!o- '(, ;i,~~ ~ ~ ~-9>,' ,t'" '"... . '"", 1,," .. '. 5>, .... 1- ~! -.. ..; ., ~ . ~ ti!e J.. .~. Ff:~) . ~11> I l ~ ~ If, ~~~~: ~ ~ ~~ . ;,,,,;:.1 .~ AJi. , . ~. ", '), :''l-; ;~~ i. J1t; .~ ".r \. ~; ..... III - .,., ~.~ .. ," ~:tr . ,! 'of I ~ ~ "i "" 1> ~ . " t~-- ~.. ~.. 'I;., ~~' "" ;:J ,.' ~ ~.;. .~ ~.?~ . k ".' ~~, '';j. 'f>~ ~fJ ~~'''',.:3~ If. ..,tj.." .'""~ 't~.,"': ~; ,-'.- "" "" ;t'~,...:Ii ;:;,'1"-;','" 'r~ '.,c;''.i><,,~;!>.'J;__ /' .p4l'* 7' -'a "".t .( (j~ ~. ",... ~ l.~ , ! " ~ !r":,,\,", .'",~ "", . ~-:';"'~ ~:~"''?;., ~ . /.~:' ~ ,."r'( · " .~ ~;.;,,~ "'! .. .. ...'.'<':!i"".;''':.. ~'-.... ~ -'......:.. '. ";;!f~~""'~~-. r t~":'. -';!" . fi . iIW 1~ ..............__lIIioiwIIt ~-:'-~ ... ~ ..- ~,; ;...~~.~.. .,..:.... '-J":4OJ 1)'," ~... .:;;. b.... '10 ..... l;;11(n,' ~ j~\!I~ --" 4-'10:-_:.41':: ~ .a !:' ~ .p ~ ""'ff" . ",,'~:iJ'>. ,'lJ;l&": "1~ 8'.. ~ . ..'1};"- 4~~?-' III ~.~~', !' ~ '. > If.': ~~: rt pol'. , . i:, @ ~ . ?J . \'1 t"1i~,:", -: ,)~(~ 1l urJ::, ~ ~ .. :~ y~- ~>( ~,,~~ ~ .,. 11'. l'j ... . ~ ..J.... ~ ~ <: l~.' _~>J...., "'-t ;~ 'jf'~....or:c ~._. " ,;'''ft..~~''~ d~""'" ;~ <i: ,,-,,!~......~ I;l .....,.,.r:,'~~:a ~ I!..;Q ;;; i(t\I..~ :"-" ~\' ~ a ~AIN ,,: :.,:!:t: .3:' r:...if"'-. ~Y" t;' '6J..'.' ~ ' ~'P ~ - ""',;3" ~ _1>.' ~ ',p- ill ~:l!J" """ "'~. C"". :>t:L.. ,;:;:) 'gJ tfI'. .. '" ..,!O. '.. ': , . .1""' -~~ ~ -~ "'1 ..~ ..c~' ~, .'~. . ~ ","c ,.:$.'\'" " ~a::.c. ~ '&\; ~ ~ J.'::; . t1"\:",~ ;'t' --.......,.,....,.,v .,-, .~' .......~~; ~.t1 {"' . $', .... ';;~~?JJ,~:'-~ ~JjJ;S'.... .;~" k":l. ., 'all . .:,..... "f~~~~?;'.j4'!tl \ ~ult. '.7~'" '?~ ,,", r~ . 'tft..-rrr;,'i$t~ '; ~.~ ~ r!' '. ;,." ~ "'''''"''''. Ir',... .... ( ..... _~'r'-1Ai,,: AI.r;jlt -. ~;Ia" ~ '1"'. .' ~. ,-. .;.= I. .... t " ~..., ~. r '/JiM..,.. . ..;;~" ~:o; e'!P..... ......." ~.~.J;...:;.. "....... ~~l/"!< ..~DJ! .r' i'" J~~ .:.. ,"'" ,]1- II '1,,.... _ ., ~ 1"':(":,' , .....jh- .'" ~'\ . ';;1; J;? . 'II; t:'" ':>.- ., '. . ~ F;. .'~", ..J!'-.. .'; ~.{.;.. \..Ii,. '- .,..,..1' " "'..~~ . r, , . .. .. " , , {" ~ ~ .~ ~~..., 'lo ~ LYMAN BLVD ,I, T.,.. .~1]~ '. ~, "" l> ~J'; ...-1 .. r.; ,4, ;, · ' ., fI, ."''(:; '"" .., ,. ? ~ " I ,. i- fl1: ,~'1fu;1; .....;:~...j.....,...j:lo ~.''li''~'' ~~='~~ d) I : .~ " : ~€tii3il ,. f:1' . ,.,'" , :.' - ,,' ~ .."Jj. " #" ,J f 1rt ~ i:;-. " '".. "~ .g~ ~i~j ., X ,- ,,100{, .... ;II- ..... ~~; f : ...... .,~ -!.. " , ;.;.. :.. ~ , ..~ 1... Ioi~ ..,. ':,,, r '- ..~~ .~ ~~).. oII"- .. ~ rt ..!l:I III ,. "" o!" ""'".. ~' . J .~: .., ~~ ~ ',' 011 ~ '" . .rl~ Ill' t! ~}.. ..... ~.:: ~-ir...~ WETLAND SITE REVIEW 1985 '" .,. .. - ,.,. ,> .... .' o ~ >. ~ '" ..Jti', - .. ~ . , ~ ",iI ?::~ ~ a:::: ,. """,. ~'.. g;! ~ a. ~~ ~,.. o .,;r-!,,,, -~~;AI" o...<i' ....-;-..... - ~'~. 1'-. , .....::r.. ' ~~ ..~ r:-,"" t ..' .....;- :iI. ~.. ~."'~'" .. t8. ...' '# '" .i -.. ./ ,'f; ~ J "... t' ~'" .,...~l:~~,... ~.~. ,.. ,11; ; ~ ~ ... ; t.' l!- i 'f- :t ,~~ .~~. ~., - ~ A. '. ~.; 't-~7. .~ ~ ;:. '- '" ~ << \ . ~ " t' ... ":' "I, . ~~ ~ . 7, ~. "Jr; II! ',", ill ~ ::~ r.. I.!: ",,' .... ~'''.. ~ FIGURE 5 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION I: \2\207024\Cod\Dwg \ Wetland Review.dwg 19135 FSA AERIAL PHOTO .' s ~ ~ .....-.---.. ..~..... " n ~ ...~ - P,": ,; !IO ...:i:;" '\> ~ ~ .......,;,A>. ;dl. '- f!" , . ~ I ~ " " ."l,"' f! ;j i 'r'#- ~. ';f,~j:tf . ~ , f , J ~ iT .. 'fj' ~ ~; " WI. ,.., ,. ~~; <l. .1- 1'r Bonestroo MARCH 12, 2007 ..: a I. ..f.... ~ " Ill' ,'=-.::::::.;. ,;;;:-,;-~. WETLAND SITE REVIEW 1986 FIGURE 6 .la- 1y- Bonestroo RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION 1:\2\207024\Cad\Owg\Wetland Review.dwg 1986 FSA AERIAL PHOTO -I I ...;.... ~~ .~. ~<' > ",.;".-j-,' (" ~ . s MARCH 12. 2007 _ ~ > v _ ~ " Mi:nnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Affidavit I Exemption Evidence for Local Government Units > I do hereby certify that the following statement of evidence or activity is true and may be used as evidence to support qualification for WCA exemptions. The LOU may require additional affidavits or verification evidence before making an exemption determination. Proiect Location: Nwl/40fSwl/4 23 Quarter Section(s) Seclion(s) 116 23 W Township No. Range No, Carver County (County/City/Loti Block/Subdivision) Go\', Lot(s) Exemption: # DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FOR EXEMPTION: Dorsey and Dorsey is the owner of the agricultural land including the areas listed below since 1979: Site # 1 was in hayland and was mechanically harvested in the years 1981-1986. Site #2 was planted in row crops of sweet corn, green beans,and soy beans in the years 1981-1986. Site # 3 was pasture and soybeans in the years 1981-1986. Site #4 was planted in row crops of sweet corn and soybeans in the years 1981-1986. On penalty of perjury, I hereby swear under oath that the information above, made for the purpose of documenting qualificatiorijor an exemption from the WCA, is true to the best of my knowledge. i;:';" /i:(;:~,,: 1 March Hi. 2007 469569752 Signature {j~ ).r/~)_lt/t /df'~Tfl (. }'__Date Social Sec. No. ,;-r ---;)'f'l-Il.'~' '(Jo-?//Lj ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me on: J [1 tt (day), MA.RCIj (month), :J..()(; 'l (year), by /LU--u; ~7/~-{,~" 'MARtA PEARSON ~P\IbIc. MIn..... - , - .... '. Com~..ton ~~Jln.a1.J01d pri12003) Page 1 of2 BWSRJorm_ WCA_Exemptiol1_ 4(Exemption_Affidavit) .. I ~ ... (Notary Stamp or Seal) Page 2 of2 BWSR _Form _ WCA _Exemption _ 4(Exemption _Affidavit) (April 2003) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227,1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952,227.1180 Fax: 952,227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227,1160 Fax: 952.227,1170 Finance Phone: 952.227,1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952,227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952,227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952,227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227,1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952,227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us April 5, 2007 Dorsey & Dorsey c/o Rick Dorsey 14215 Greenview Court Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Re: Wetland Exemption Application Dear Mr. Dorsey: This letter is to notify you that the City will be unable to complete the review of your exemption request within the 60-day review period that ends May 11, 2007. Therefore, I am notifying you that the City is extending its review period for up to an additional 60 days, through July 10, 2007. If you have any questions or need additional (952) 227-1135 or lhaak@ci.chanhassen.rnn.us. please contact me at Sincerely, The City 01 Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautilul parks, A great place to live, work, and play. Page 1 of 1 Haak, Lori From: Meyer, Benjamin L [Ben.Meyer@bonestroo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 200710:54 AM To: Haak, Lori Subject: Dorsey Permit affidavit Attachments: Affidavit of Land Use.pdf Lori, Attached is an affidavit from the landowner that corresponds to the previously submitted aerial photos. With this information we are assuming that this constitutes a complete application. Can you confirm with me when the timeline will start and when you think the City might have some decisions made? Any update on Fox's properties? Has BWSR given any further guidance on either project? Thank you, Ben Meyer Tel 651-604-4767 Cell 651-253-6648 ben. meyer@bonestroo.com .. Bonestroo 2335 Highway 36 W St. Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.com 3/21/2007 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Affidavit I Exemption Evidence for Local Government Units I I do hereby certify that the following statement of evidence or activity is true and may be used as evidence to support qualification for WCA exemptions, The LOU may require additional affidavits or verification evidence before making an exemption determination. Proiect Location: Nwl/40fSwl/4 23 Quarter Seclion(s) Seclion(s) 116 23 W Township No. Range No, Carver County (County/City/Loti Block/Subdivision) Gov. LOI(s) Exemption: # DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FOR EXEMPTION: Dorsey and Dorsey is the owner of the agricultural land including the areas listed below since 1979: Site # 1 was in hayland and was mechanically harvested in the years 1981-1986. Site #2 was planted in row crops of sweet corn, green beans,and soy beans in the years 1981-1986. Site # 3 was pasture and soybeans in the years 1981-1986. Site #4 was planted in row crops of sweet com and soybeans in the years 1981-1986. On penalty of perjury, I hereby swear under oath that the information above, made for the purpose of documenting qualification)or an ~xemption from the WCA, is true to the best of my knowledge. i:. -;" J:(;~: March 1'. 2007 469569752 Signature {j,: ).rt~').IJt'l litf>7fL l J,__pate Social Sec. No. ,;-r 7i'/~-e.''f' "(}-."C'/n; 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me on: -1..t4 tt (day), l\\AR.CIj (month), :).or 7~(year), by jtA.kuu ~J'~~~ Page I of2 BWSR]orm_ WCA_Exemption_ 4(Exemption_Affidavit) MARtA PEARSON J4DIIIyPublc........ ' Comn:11nl'- .... ......1.JO'1_ pril2003) . ... (Notary Stamp or Seal) Page 2 of2 B WSR ]orm _ WCA_Exemption _ 4(Exemption _Affidavit) (April 2003) Page 1 of 1 Haak, Lori From: Meyer, Benjamin L [Ben.Meyer@bonestroo.com] Sent: Monday, March 12,200712:55 PM T : Haak, Lori Cc: homeclub@qwest.net; Graczyk, Greg - Waconia, MN; Brad Wozney Subj ct: Dorsey ago exemption photos Attachments: Dorsey Wetland Review 81-86.pdf Lori, Please see attached in reference to the Rick Dorsey ago exemption application request. Thank you, Ben Meyer Certified Wetland Delineator/Sr. Wetland Scientist DIRECT: 651.604.4767 EMAIL: ben.meyer@bonestroo.com " Bonestroo 2335 West Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 MAIN: 651.636.4600 FAX: 651.636.1311 WEB: www.bonestroo.com 6/27/2007 March 12, 2007 City of Chanhassen Attn: Lori Haak 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Dorsey WCA Ag. Exemption Application Ms. Haak, Enclosed are the FSA aerial photos from 1981 to 1986 that pertain to the WCA Agricultural Exemption for the Dorsey property. These photos are provided as a supplement to the original application and provide documentation as outlined in Minnesota Rule 8420.0122, Subpart 1 A. Please feel free to contact me at 651-604-4767 or ben.meyer@bonestroo.com if you have any questions regarding these supplemental materials. Sincerely, ~~~. Benjamin L. Meyer Certified Wetland Delineator Sr. Wetland Scientist Cc: Rick Dorsey Greg Graczyk - Carver SWCD Brad Wozney - BWSR 2335 Highway 36 W St. Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.com .. Bonestroo WETLAND SITE REVIEW - 1981 FIGURE 1 .- Bonestroo I: \2\207024\Cad\Owg\ Wetland Review.dwg 1981 FSA AERIAL PHOTO .' s MARCH 12, 2007 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION ~ .. WETLAND SITE REVIEW - 1982 FIGURE 2 .- Bonestroo 1:\2\207024\Cad\Owg\Wetland Review.dwg 1982 FSA AERIAL PHOTO .' s MARCH 12, 2007 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION i 1J ~. "'\' ",\ '%' " ""'...'....~' ,~. ' _'l"". :::t ~:f. i ,/P;' WETLAND SITE REVIEW 1983 FIGURE 3 .- Bonestroo 1:\2\207024\Cad\Owg\Wetland Review.dwg 1983 FSA AERIAL PHOTO wi$' s MARCH 12. 2007 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION ~..... 'f. ~.. . ~ lIlInt!YMAN BLVD , :..- ~ us i }"" t-."': ,iT V a," 'j I i, I. 'jy r ,:. . ts;-",..~, .. ~ WETLAND SITE REVIEW 1984 FIGURE 4 .- Bonestroo 1:\2\207024\Cad\Owg\Wetland Review.dwg 1 984 FSA AERIAL PHOTO ." s MARCH 12, 2007 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION ~ .....~~ ,'. ... ,,' -,. ,f,' ':~"-'>Y .>, 1'- , . ".' '/' ';~ .'t. .,t, '~;J'-. . '-' , . ,. ;f..,.t.~" ,- ~. i.t- "'. ... V :'t,' , .. ~ ,..,t-j, ""1.' . ,. ".' ~ ,~... r~ ?., ." ~ ..f."'~. j '. ; '" . . . .: , . \\ . ~.~,,~~ .... p.~ 'i1m!~ - LYMAN BLVD .1 2 ~ -;,; ,) , ''4 . . . ".. . ,. 'J: .. ' .- . ,~ 4 " ~.. '. . ~ . ,-, . . . ,. ~". ",~ . (~,~..."'..~. '" '~~~;f-::~o.J.' tu .. " 10 ~ .:::i.,::. ~{J ,JJt.;; ~~'I>'"< y. -; .- ~,'" ;;.' -1 , . } "". ". .. "," . "" .,~, ~ , '"'i'!- t' f:.i.,-. ~ ';'-i( ~ .. . ,,c'" rjY;:;""'';'-~n(J ~!I~"""-~ ~'iW . " ,~. ~ ~. ;'; '.< . ~ "~-~~f..N.'. .~'-. ',. - :-I.'. . ,t!' ~ . .~ .~"JlI;~"';' ':.;iJ.' ':t- .... " "t. ~ . "Y.~ .' ~ ~ ~~~. " /: ,( :: WETLAND SITE REVIEW 1985 FIGURE 5 .- Bonestroo 1:\2\207024\Cad\Owg\Wetland Review.dwg 1 985 FSA AERIAL PHOTO '.' s MARCH 12, 2007 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION WETLAND SITE REVIEW - 1986 FIGURE 6 .- Bonestroo 1:\2\207024\Cad\Owg\Wetland Review.dwg 1 986 FSA AERIAL PHOTO . s MARCH 12. 2007 RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION February 20, 2007 Mr. Rick Dorsey Dorsey & Dorsey 14215 Greenview Court Eden Prairie, :MN 55346 Wetland Exemption Application Re: Dear Mr. Dorsey: This letter is to inform you that we are in receipt of your application for a wetland exemption for Sites 1-4, located south of Lyman Boulevard and west of Powers Boulevard. After reviewing the data submitted, it was determined th~t the application is incomplete and the following information is missing: ". Evidence of the exemption claimed, as outlined ili\'Milj:iie,~ota Rule 8420.0122, Subpm l~, '~~;~#~t~;I~~~~:y "",. " 'V~:; 1 aerial photogr application. ~ ' <-)-~ o t4! ~; For this reason, until these items / ...",.:s.~;'" to process an aj1~ information to rev If you have any CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952,227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952,227.1400 Fax: 952,227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 FaX: 952,227,1110 Public Works 1591Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227,1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn,us cc g:\eng\lori\wetlands\exemphons\dorsey Incomplete application.doc The City 01 Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. RECEIVED St. Paul, MN 55113 Fax: 651-636-1311 . . 2335 West Highway 36 Office: 651-636-4600 www.bonestroo.com 8 2007 CITY OF CHANHASSEN FES - . n. Bonestroo .IUI Rosene \i Anderlik & '\l' Associates Engineers & Architects February 7, 2007 City of Chanhassen Attn: Lori Haak 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dorsey WCA Ag. Exemption Application Re Enclosed is the WCA Agricultural Exemption per requirements of City Code. We would like to meet with YOU at your earliest convenience to discusS this application. Haak, Ms if you have Piease feei free to contact me at 651-604-4767 or bmeyer@bonestroo.com any questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Assoc ~ L Benjamin L. Meyer Certified Wetland Delineator Sr. Wetland Scientist St. paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, MN · Milwaukee, WI · Chicago i\fflrmatlve Action/Equal OpportunitY Employer and Employee owned Rick Dorsey . C: V.2.01tor MS WORD} 09.01.'0-1 Water/Wetland Proiects NA.026620-O.l B Minnesota Local/State/Federa '1 for A ication Form Internal Use Only A icatiol1 Rccei ved I For O,lte Inicial licacioll Deemed ComJllete A inicial BASIC APPLICATION nformatjoll and assistance ill lnstruction3. Page l. Date PART Field Oflice Code No. J!icatiOl A ~'0l1I0 important addition;l "See HELP" directs 952-831- 7204 I) Phone: J. LA~DOW1\ER/APPLlCAl'\T C01\TACT Ii\FOR)IATIOl'\ (See [{(dl Name: Dorsey & Dorsey C/O Rick Dorsey Eden Prairie, MN 55346 i(appl iClIMr..; (Ol/~ 4215 Greenview Ct AUTHORIZED AGEI'iT (See He/I' lA) Ben Meyer, Bonestroo & Assoc. I ng adul'CSs: 2335 W. Hwy Complete mailing address: A. Name: Complcte /lot r"qllirer!) Phone: 651.604.4767 is all agel/t Addir;'JJlal PrOje!cttlr"ashcets ifnccUed 8 2 04 0 5 06 D 7 D acres (indicate l;izc: 5,66) 0 tOto 40 ~I?ACTED (Allacl J D ~ MN 55113 2. i\A.\IE, TYPE MiD SIZE OF PUBLIC WATERS or WETLAI\DS Name or I. D. # of Waters Imptlcted (ifapplieable: if known): (Check nllthat ^.. DLake DRiver ~Wetlalld type r:8J lndieatl) sizc of lakc or wcl d (dlcck one): ~ Less t L D o Sl. Paul 36, ""ply) irc crC$ 40 o Gre:lte. acres Chanhassen title insllrance) City (ifnpplicnble) titlC' p/'OI)(?r~1 Itl" s(a(elll<! Fire #; Cl 'I {-'roper!.\ (PID 250230400) 6 hejrJ//J/( I (/n/ol'lIIal iOJ Lyman Blvd 3. ProJ~" Coullty: (nallll;'! Range #: 23 LJ Towns] Joention or landmark, and 4. TYPE OF PROJECT: Dcmibe the type of propos cd work. Atweh TYP/:.' Or- PROJ/:XTsheet ifnceued. Mn Rule 8420.0115 and 8420.0122 Subpart 1 A. Agricultural Exemption (SEE ATTACHED for additional info) know 5. PROJECT PUI~POSE, OESCIUPTION A~D 01.\IE1\'$101\'8: Describe what you plal1 to do tlll<1 \Vhy it is IlceLlcLl. how you plan co construct the project with dimensions (length, width. deplh), nren of impact, and when you propose to COtlstrllcllhe project. This is the most importllnt part 01' .rour npplication. See HELP 5 before completing this section; see What To Include 01l1'Iall5 (lnstntctiol1s. p;lge I), AUtlch PROJeCT DI::SCRff'T10N sheet. (ATTACHED) Utilizing Type 1 wetlands for the purpose of agricullural production utilizing standard farming practices and machinery. Footprint of pl'Oject: 3.52 acres or squarc feet drained, filled or excavated. 6. PROJECT AL TERNA TIVES; What altemativl:s to chis proposed project have you considered that would nvoid or minimize impacts 10 wetlands or waters'? List at least TWO ,ldditiol1ul altel'l1alivcs to your project in Section 5 that avoid wcthlllds (olle of which nmy be "110 build" 01' "do nothing"), and explain why you chose to pursue [he option described illtbis <lppliC~lion over these altcmmives, Attneh PROJECT ALTl:.7~N..ITlVES sheet ifneedctl. N/A 7. ADJOINI~G PROPEIHV OWNERS: For projects tl1a! impact more than nHliling addresses of adjacent propetty owners on an nllaehed separtite sheet. (See Ihe ctlmplcte If DNa, 8. POllTION OF WORK COMPLETED: Is :lI1y portion oflhe work in weiland or \~1Her arca~ alrC<Hly completed? [8J Ycs yes. describe the completed work on a separate sheel of pnper labeled WORK ALREADY CO;\IPLETED, (See HELP 8) Tiled and Farmed (SEE A 11 ACHED for additiolll1! info) 9. STATUS OF OTH [R APPltOV ALS: List any othcr permits. reviews or approval, related to have already been appro\'ed or denied 011 a separate lltt;lched sheet. See HELP 9. I.t wetlands. 0,000 square feet of watcl' UI HELP 7 10. I 1111ll1ppJ)ing for state and local authorization to conduct the work described in this l1pplicatiot' am familiar with the contained in this application. To the best of my knowledge and belie!: all intormation ill Part ( is tme, complete. and accurate. the all;!J~~rll~o undCl1akc tile work described. or I ;111l :lcting as the duly ;\lIthonzcu agent of the applica (~' pending or infot1natiol1 pas sess arc cithcl tha s proposed proj eCI 2/2/07 e:~~::::<t?{"'7 .....- a--S"01 OllIe Date! qf age!//t ({I'applicahle) Signalllre hits sign~( Ag~l th~ fonly do so, This bl<K:k OlUs! be signcd by the person who t1csirt'S to Ul1dltrtake the pruposed activity and has the ncct'ssury prop,'rty rights 10 pleast' anach a separate shect si!,rno:d by IIle lamlo\\'l:er. giving nltcess.\ry "lllhorization to tho: Ag~l Project,; tor Wnter/Wetland Application Furm,; Pag' Lo(aI/Smtc!Federal l\1i 1111>::501a A..UCATION FOR DE? ART"E~' 01' TIlE AR-Wi 'E",I1T 0' cro ". ",,16 ....O\'.L NO. 01 to"" v., "" "'," ."" ".."".. """" ,we" ~''''"''' of''"''''"~'' " ",,-'" " ,,_ CO _ ..._. ,,,,,",,," -, of ",'tt""" ..",..... J """ · .....'.' "",..., "" ''''' I. ,."'"'''' ,.._ ..""'''' ",,,,c. "'" ",_ "";.. "" .,_" "" ..........." ~o.l,,,,,",, -"',,, "".".' of ,""'- s,"" ,.._" ...... mi, __ ",i~" ~ '" """ "", ~c"" "",_ .",..~'''~ ..,"',.."....... .....~..... "",,,,. " """.- of"'''''''' .",ci_ ,"'""."," ~_ o;,",.~~ .,,"'_' """,... .. ."... "" ,.._ ,~." "....,. "''' ,,.,. "",,"00. ,,' ,,,," "., """ c'" 0",' ~ ",-~~ ... """~, _...... "".."", '''''~ "n_" .....~ ",. ,,",,,. ..-"'.. ..." '" ..~ ,,,"" "'.,""""" .., -."""". ""ow. ,,~"'" ~.n '" "'"'" ' ", ~,." '" r,".' " ~"'. .., . 0"'" ~ ."~"....,, ;r" "'. .. ..." . """" ,,'" OM" ""'c'" -"'" "'~'" ,or ".c"ON Y"" '''"'' '" ""~ 'n_....- ,_'"' ...'''"'"'' """ " .b.... '" c" c",;o .,_ ,,,.m, i""",'di'" ". .. ,,,,'00 .r,,. <"""'" "",,, ",,,'.'C< ":T <'AT"'''''' ^""",'c'" ",,".'" ,_" ,<c,. ""''' .. " us<: .."'~... .~, ,. ~-"" "oS<' ".. "... """ct'oo. '"~'"' "" _~," "'" " oS' "''' ,<ct'" ,.,. """,", ._, ,._,~ ."" i~d" ,", """ .m" ='" ".,~..", """'00 ." .,..ie. .,"...."" ''''' ,..,....'" _" .""... c~ ,__ ,f ,~.. ood."" ,_ _.... "'.. ","'_c .~~"'. ",,,,..,' .,.- ;o,_c""'. ...."" ,~~..." 'ol,...,.. " '" "",,,,, .. ~...c .....'" ",., ~ ",~,", ~ "'. ~...c ~ ,... 4, Oi\1E- APPLICATION (OMPLnf.D THROUCH 4 TO BE fILLED IN B" THE CORPS i:; valid 3. DATE REC[lvED 1 2, fiELD OffICE CODE HEMS 1\l'rt.lC 1\ liON NO. ::.:-- non-shl\l\C(\ iten\s 5 and 26. 11';1\1 agett for Itse (}f1ly when inchtdcd as 1)ar app\icMtS Al \. roi.1I - It II' JIS \lpp\icallUn all ,,!!~t\t J\1 111-: pl~~SSlIlg {I" ~"')' 01 -- -~ (fU agel tllY bella\ r" s t\lY (f (llIlhori:1/11:: to-.IL1 >)1\ \I. S1' A TF.r.tl'.I'" OF A,\J'TH 0 !to."\' TION I hl"f~b)' a\I\\1I.\li1): Ben Meyer. BonP;ttO~" i\s~oe, v.::; 11\:Illll tcql,\~Sl. SllP\lleI1\~nl,,1 intoTnllnion ii 'lpPO~ ~I-t. "'~ r;; .~'~ ;,;../ 'j~~_ j \ 1, - ",,,II/little on\;-' ,,/lpliC:(lhl<t: lif tlPp\icah\e) D/\1'f.: 4. PROIECl' STREET i\DDllliSS (if instructions) i\Pl'LlCi\N"S SIGNsrURE: \" (if applicable) \2. PROJECT WJAE. OR TITl.E (see KNOWN 16. an ",0 LOCAnON O,.scKl1'TIONS. If KNOwN I"" i_di..,) NAME Of WA'fERBODY. If 15. LOCATION Of PROJf'.<"\ 13. 1&. Ni\TURf.,OF t\C1'lViTY 20. REASON(S) fOR DiSCHAROE 21. TYPES 0' MAT61UAL ailING D1Sl;llAam;O AND TIlE AMOUNT 0' IlACll TYl'E ,N CUlIC y"""S Ii . DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE 19. PRomcr l'URYOSE If YES, Df,SCIUBl'. COMPLETED WORK 12. sUR' A'" ;J'."A IN IICO'S Of wmLANOS OK "",v.' WATERS fll.""D 26. AW" ",ion i, ",,,,by ,oad' ror. "",.h 01 p<m ,i~ '0 ,,'bod" ,.. worl< ",,,1b<!i io ,hi, "",Ii,,'i on. \ "rtify ,1u>I ,.. i" 'Or,.,,;on in "" .,,"on'i on i' "'"" i," ,nd """,,,,. ,,",,,,or ,,!Ii fy ,bnll ."",,, ,ho DUmocilY to .od<rt,k< tl~ _k .""il," ,~,ci" or .m ",i". " "'" ,ol Y t\UtllOflzed agent of the applicant, ". LIST 0' ","'.' CtU<flftcAnONS OK ^,,,,o,^(.S/Of....LS Rl'.(:F'VW FROM OT!l'" "'0....'. ST A,'e OK we-L .OF""'ES 1'0' WORK Ol:'-SCRIBBD IN THIS A1'l'UCAiION. NO_ - -:::::: YES 23. IS I\.NYl'OR1'lON OF 'fHF. WORK ALREADY caMPI-8m 24, ADDRFSSES OF At>JOlNING PROPER'!V OWNERS, ~..~ ....-./-',,, .' ~~~~y' . 4"i" ?,...~~,;."."... ,.___y"::~.;; {~::;;. :,0 mJ07 - Dilli: ,'" 'W''''''" '" n ""i,"" '" m' .."""' . on "'''''' . ""d<<"" m, ~...... ~ti, iIy \."",,'"'" oc " "'" 1~ '" ".}by · ,," """ori'" '. ,," it .",,,""'" '" B''''' " "" "'" fill'" ,,,, '"" ...~. ,," _~ C. ,,,ti,, "" ~'" ''''' c"', "'..".. i, ,,' cM'''' """',, ." i,,"'i''''" of .., _,,,00," ,,,,,",,, ,fI'" U"", ,,",'" _i"" "'" .ill"'" ~'.'<" -",.. " co"" "wi" .., ,i,k. """,~. " di""i~" "",.", loc' " ..,,,,,, ."". ,.~n"" or '"","''''" ",,,,,,,, '" "",_Ci,M '" ",,", '" c,,~ '" """ ~ici., '" ."".."" ""." ..." · ,.""" '" f,'~ ,,,,iti~,,, .,,,,,,,,,, ""..."" or "c"' ",lib. ,...."" ,,"" "'.. S to."" " i "",,"""" ," m'" ".. ,., ,- " ""', ENG ,ORM 4145. J.' 91 EDmON Of flO0 94 IS onSOLETE. (P,,,,",~c"' CEeW.oR' yoU DO Nor NEED TO coMPLETE ITEMS 6-10 and 12.2510 the SHADED AREAS. "'," ",,,,,,,,, " ""d. ,"" ,,,,,,,,,,, i ",co a ",d ". T"" """",,,, f ""c>l r_ of this cnti re state aop\icatiOt'l $ill\l;tttw~ \)fag~nt {if3ltY J v-L Af7 Dale """",,,1.''''''"'''''''<"'' ^,.i,,"'" '''',," f", "".,'Wcl"" "oj"" Page 2 '1 o No WCA Iurisdiction o Exempt: No, _ (per MN Rule 8420.0(22) o No Loss: _ (A.B,. . .G, per MN Rule 8420.0220) o Replacement required - applicant must complete Part FOR LGU USE ONLY: Determination for Part 1 n COMPLETE THE SECTION BELOW ONLY IF REPLACEMENT IS NOT REOUlRED: Application is (check one): 0 Approved o Approved with conditions (conditions attached) o Denied Dale CommentslFindings: LGU official signalltre and 28). LGt: has received proof of recording of restrictions Name and Title For Agricultural and Drainage exemptions (MN Rule 8420.0lZ2 Subps (per M~ Rule 8420.0115): Document # assigned by recorder Dale Water/Wetland Proj ects LGU ojficw[ signatllre Application Forms for Page 3 Date Minnesota LocaVStatelFederal County where recorded Ago Ex-emption Basic APplication Supplemental Attachment Dorsey Property AS a result, these wetland llteas were grandfatheted into the WCA of 1991 as e"eUtpt froUt reaulation under MN Statute 1 03G,224 1 subdivision 1, and MN Rules 8420.0122 subpart lA, .: of the date of enactUtent of the Law and do not re'luire a replaceroent plan for drainage or filling. (type 1 of anY size and those Type 2 wetlands less than 2 acres in size which had been impacted prior to 1991 and were used for agriculnrral purposes in 6 of the Utost recent 10 year.; prior to 1991llte e"eUtpt froUt the WCA). As no [ding for e"eUtptiOn wasre'lUired and the activity occurred prior to the enacunent of the Statue for the WCA of 1991, the AgrtCUlt1J!al e"eUtption froUt a replacentent plan and other regulation was lJ)ltomatically grandfathered in and claimed for draining. filling and e"ca"ling in these wetland areas on 1afiUll1"f 1. 1992. the date the Statue became effective. MN Rule 8420.0115 States "an activity is eJlempt if it 'lualifles for anyone of the e"eUtptions, even though it may be indicated as not e"eUtpt under another e"eUtpUo,;' MN Rule 8420.0210 states "An e"emption maY applY whether or not the local governrnent unit has m><\C an e"eUtption deterrn\11af\on" . Chan\lllSsen City Code Article VI, 20-426 noW re'luires e"eUtptions be reported to the City. This application is to address the City of cnanhassen code cited abOve and to request a detertllination of e"eUtption r~ired by City Code. The activity to be performed at this tinte continuation of work done within the site and is needed as a result of c\tangIDg conditions to addreSS concerns with respect to safe acceSS to the property for the farm e<\uipUtent, safety to UtotorislS on adjacent roads, to facilitate Illtger e'luipUtent, to increase productivity. and to Utaintain past drainage on the site. The site has been and sti\\ is e"eUtpt froUt the need for a replaceUtent plan and other regulation with respect to Minnesota Statutes as stated abOve. The work being planned in Sites 1. 2. 3 and 4 is a continuation of investUtent Utade and work done for agricultural purposes within wetlands prior to the Wetland conservation Act ~CA) of 1991. Sites 1, 2, 3 and 4 were e"cavated. drained, f1\led andlor tiled for agricultural use prior to WCA and were annua\\y seeded with crops or were in croP rotation seeding of pasture grass or leguUtes in 6 of the UtOSt reCCnt 10 yelltS prior to lanuary 1, 1991 (between lanoary 1, 1981 and I anuarY 1, 1991 and were in Type 1 or Type 2 wetlands. 2 acres or less in size). Agricult1J!al E"eUtptioo. per Mn Rule 8420.0115 and 8420.0122 subpart 1. A. C\tanltassen City code Article VI, sec. 20-426 re'luires that all e"eUtptions be reported to the City. 4. Type of Project is a Page 1 of 5 February 7,2007 . . . . e ditches, tile aodlo' sw.les will ,ewrn .cres Retilling the JlOod aod ,eestabllSluOg egress dta~.g bl ked off It will .110'11 lot the f1elds 01 lost to w.1et b.cklog 1",1ll the ma\nOl\e dttches e1l1g OC . . '11 hIe lields with theit oeighbO" to eOSute. safe 'the owoets oeed to cooOect aod cOl:ob1l1e tl ~ h me latIIle' will reduce the oeed to mlve lanning ope,ation. COoOcct\!lg f1elds aod \U1fv:'g t e~' flO ()OO catS pe' d.y) to .ccess the . eOt onto county ,oadS lW1th ltll ,1C coon so' . l:ds~~ wi.l1 provide safetY to bOth the 1.tIll ope,atO' aod moto'lSts. page '2 of 5 . dimeot aod eroded materi'ls ftom Site lII. to 'the ownets inteod to dta10 the .pood. exca:.te se t t the oew stotIll JlOod designed to tCCetve retill the pond in Site lIlaod dttCCt \he su".ce W' et 0 the sutl.ce wate' from the ptoperty. . d very latge sutl.ce w~, tJ)OlIllgement JlOod AS . part 01 the oew U\ghw'y 2 \2 ptO]ect. .0 dew:, ouest 01 the City 01 C\tannasseo to blllldle was designed aod nullt. Its siZe was mcrease at t e re" sutl",e w.te' from the foX and Dotsey ptopett1es. n'ce wate' {lllIll.gement JlOod lSlte lit) in 19&910 an 'the owoets exc.vated the cut<eot sm.ll SU b' bl cked from notut.l m.in.ge .ctoSS the .ttempt to cootalO floodlog 01 sutl.ce w.te' ettl~ Oote... coU.osed the ditches by driving ovet h t (the n,eViOUS owoet s ,e..' , . " ~ adj.cent p,opertY to t e eas' r . Ii h combined with e'ostOO to bloc~ u,e them with his ltllctO' and would oot tttake ,epat".w ~= 0 e"c...ted on' ntevlously dtailled. tiled d 'm.teIV 0 6 .c,es ttl Size ~"" ~. r. w.te' floW). h JlO" 'PP,ox1 ' d' 1 h alOe size. lM the tiltll' 01 e1.c...tton the ate. was and 1.tIlled. shalloW Type 1 wetlao 0 t e s the,e was standing w.te, with nO pl.ce \0 go Identif1ed by the DNR as . Class U wetlaod bec.use ot the owoe" s intent to create wetlands. as . result 01 the ditch being.totallY bIOC\<edh} It w~ ~e "",uod . much latge' """ "",uod It has NoW as . ,esult 01 the contJUllCd w.te' leac ttlg m 0 ". beCOme saturated. . . dlo' fill slll.lI, loW g,ade wetlands and · sutl'ce 'the owoets"'" planllttlg to exc.vate, dJ:atO and' 19&9 sun.ce w.te, will be directed to · oeW wate' m.nagemeot poud prevlousl~ exc.vate 1'01200 feet to the east least 01 powets Blvd. part sun.ce w.te, man.gemeot JlOnd 'PP,oxunate ~ t be wo,\<ed 10 h.ve p,evloUSly beeo 01 the 1:lighw'~ 2\2 stotIll pond p,oject). hll ~eas 0 t ftom' ,epl.cemeot plan pe' State 01 excavated. dtailled andlot ftlled an~ ""'. .lre;h~ ~:~ghbO'iOg p,operty owoe' is willing to M.\Ollesota Statute 1030.2241 sub tlS:~.te; .cross his P'opert~ \0 the oeW JlOod. cooper.te .od p,oVide . means to ltC . . . . . eot Is \at e' aod needs longe' stt.lghte' f1elds to p,ccCSS \0 p,operty IS \tm1ted; latIIl10g e<\u1P'" C Il g d and ove,groWO ditches and uee ,ootS opetate elf1c\eodY, p'oductlvel~ and p'ol~blYb ~o 3{l:;ps, aod e,osioo ,e<tuites' need to loo\< h.ve bloc\<ed 011 the dta~e, ttee groWl IS ~ '\dg d to neW roads aod latget e<\ulpment used t LesS .ccess to ,1e S ue ,. . ft' . d .t sutl.ce w.te' managemeo . . to \<eep .gt\cultute ope,at10ns e 1Clent ao by latIIletS ,e<tuites new fteld managemeot ptac\1ces -profttab\e. Ag. E'ltem-ption -r"'_\.....ll~rV 1, '2001 Description Dorse'i pro-pert'i Project 5 Ag. E1teUlptiOn Dorsey \'to\",rty .' \lie CounW Roads. it will provide longer rows and three fanus to be connected wtthoot gotOg ?n significant efftciencies to thelt fartO o\",rattons. . 't to e"cayale a surface wate< collectioo pond, 1~ 19'/,9 when the owner< got an e"cayattOO 1"""" \ . &: d b~ t",e D"" m as a ClasS 11 wetland. It ,. . f th r and it was c as,,,te ,." 'l''' water was pondlng for part 0 e y;;, t area that was considered wetland area plos was alSO tOoch sroaller than todaY. e en Ite . th n waler ",",,"geroent pond abOot 0.6 of additional area was e1tca. yated and replaced wt . a so ;-:,0 regularl~ flooding additional area ..., d bas nO ootleut OyetuO~'" ..... an ~ in sit.<. Becaose we po" . b . ng classilJed as T)'Il" I wetland. ,,,e area d is satorating additional ground that 15 now et ~y is rnore than triple what it was less than fdteen yearS ago, . 19'/,9 the owner< got apeonit to e"cayale a 'fIte area \hat was wet continoed to e"p:,~ s~~\ B) Drainage oot of the pond area is totally pond to contain the surface water runo " te ~ei hbOriog ptoJ"'rty and eyen with the blocked by the higher grade botlthng ops~ "",I; and 100 year rain', \hat the pond floods e"cayated area mere are ttl11e~. soch ~ l' 1 Ig d t workable \hat historically always bas """\1. beyond the dog oot area rna\<'ng addtttona an 00 ~ibit A Site I d abOot.'/, acres ot'f)'ll" I wetland. Before being currently this is \.2 ~s of T)'Il" ~ wetl~ an ed for oyer 30 years. 'fIte owner< propose to e"cayated in 19'/,9 it was tiled, drrooed ~d ~ ct surface water frorn Dor<ey and Fo" pro\"'rtY drain me pond. nil and ose a swale or tt e to "" .n ce water for \hiS area. This area was ttled. to new stoon water pond sized for ~ccejlttng me so ~boring property being blocked (E>b.ibit c). drained and fartOed prior to me dtitutage on the netg (otiginJlllY before tiled, likely a T)'Il" I wetland) t ""d baled eyet" "ear in ilS entirety until . d ha" lan<1 \hat was CO au ' , ..... . 'fbe area mat 15 now a po" was , d ditches and erosion on me netg<Cuortng 19'/,1(see PhotO')' In 1981, as a result of me :ollap:e lowest spot on the sobject property (at the pro\"'rty blocking the dtlUuage, a srnalld~O~OII:gwate< as it backed 01' rna\cing it wet for tOO ceoter of the corrent pond area). starte rnoch of \lie year to cot the haY, . ro err droye Oyer the ditches and eliminated all After 19'/,3 the fartOer who rented the adjacent iil ~ 1~'/,1 the ditches were folly collapsed and striJ:ls of grasslb.ay. osed for erostOO coolt:1. O? h~rinI> property bloc\ciOg drainage frorn the erosiOO raised the grade of loW land on t e netg an oncoo """iye off sile owner. In 19'/,1 the subiect pro\",rty. 'fIte neighbor at me tf-e was th sobi~ propertY and got progressiyelY worse surface water was backtng 01' and 1l"'" tOg 00 e each year, flooding additional land, . 19'/,1 'fIte owner fartOed the adjacent pro\",M 'fIte owners land has been in Ag \'t.ese",e stOce ,re s0 fartOed and Mr. Dorsey continoed to frorn 1980- 19'/,3.\'tior to fartOtOg ~t the n:::e faon ~ec\tOiq,oes. At that time the lan<1 was irnproye conset'laUon practtces os~ con ~ b th properties were well <1rained. fanne<1 to the ditches. the thtches were open an 0 .. page 3 of 5 1_~"XrV' 1 , 2001 '~ . ~ . Dorsey Property Ag. Exemption Site 2 has been tiled, drained and farmed long before the inception of the WCA in 1991. Proposed improvements include: raise grade with fill (as some tile has been broken or has become plugged) and retile or swale to connect to drainage plan of Site #1 crossing the adjacent property to the east. Site 3 plan is to cut overgrown willow trees and re-grade surface swale that has eroded to an impassable ditch and to fill and drain wet spot along embankment from Lyman Boulevard with a new swale. Site 4 is in the southwest edge of property, with about 12 foot by 200 foot area against Fox LP property. The plan would be to fill and raise grade to control against overflow from wetland and development to the west and to provide access to Fox LP property for farmer. The owner has contacted the property owner to the east and sOllth, and is coordinating with them to establish drainage across his property. Site 1 in hay and alfalfa looking east toward shed on Fox property, 1981. The farm implement is at the west edge of the site. February 7. 2007 Page 4 0 f 5 . '\1- ,. Dorsey Property Ag. Exemption Site 1 looking east toward shed on Fox property, 1983. Exhibits A. Site Locator Map with wetland boundary determination, wetland types and areas. B. Pond excavation plan, 1989. C. Property site aerial photo, 1963. February 7, 2007 Page 5 of 5 ,. ./ . f' ~ ~ . -- ,--- -.'W' ~.-.....,...... L~ ~..""f-------"-' ... ~~~... "-sl~'~~.~~~, .! ., :.~.~ . .~. -:-} t , ~~""'. .' t'A. I'!:'; "'::~r~OW . l;i ~ . '., '\ \:."~"~'1 . .' <Il' (.. -"f\. ;i-~ f "':1">1:, ...1.A.:~ '\ 'l~ ' _......~...,~ . _~._ ._ __L,YfJ1.an !1!'f!L ., !:::I Fox Property Dorsey Pro pe rty p;r ~,~ " 1 I I J \ ~ '1: ~~ ~SHED , i!t. .,. _ .- \ ~-", ~;;; ,. ..' ... -' -J _:... j.... '. ~~--- ....- Fox LP . Property --- - . RICK DORSEY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION o I Scale in EXHIBIT A f_:~~~O ". ~ Bonestroo -=- Rosene ~ Anderlik & ~ J 11 Associates Engineers & Architects SITE LOCATOR MAP -----, I' \. ~~:..\l \1\.-1..1I:':'a .in....: \1\ \r 32\. ...., ~ ,.:> ;....h,J n 1'1....1:_;-.5,_;; ~\,; >i->:,~ . :..::' d~i~ \.": '. \ ~" \,: ~<1.-.\, :. ~-_t3i~:U \, ,'" '\~C -,.. ..,. ..~r' , . E'i l:~;.f 1> \ \ - \ ---8LVD \--;=r-LYMAN o' . .0' 100' I~' 11-10-" dy o '"OI'OS(O POND C [!tOS/Of( eoJtTItOt. o OiS"O~.t.. SIT{ I D~~ey BNI)_ ~OP06E D_~~._._ c=-_--=- -.'.-'.8" 0 <c. ,.... I Message Page 1 of 2 Haak, Lori From: Meyer, Benjamin L [bmeyer@bonestroo.com] S nt: Thursday, November 16, 2006 2:23 PM T : Haak, Lori Subj ct: RE: Ag. exemption determination Both Dorsey and Fox lease the land to someone to farm it. Because of the new Powers Blvd and Hwy 212 expansions, the Fox property has limited access to their properties with large farm equipment. Therefore, they are looking at cooperatively farming the properties by ignoring their property boundaries and allowing the large equipment to access the Fox properties through the Dorsey land. Also the larger equipment needs larger turning radii and such. Because they are zoned within the ago area they feel this exemption is warranted. Main purpose would be for cultivation of the Type 1 wetlands and to re-fill the open water portion of the Type 2. Thank you, Ben PS. I will on vacation all of next week. Any chance on getting a decision tomorrow? -----Original Message----- From: Haakr Lori [mailto:lhaak@ci,chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: ThursdaYr November 16r 2006 1:17 PM To: Meyerr Benjamin L Subject: RE: Ag. exemption determination Ben, I'm currently reviewing the rules with regard to the proposal. I will let you know before Thanksgiving if we need additional information or can decide about the exemption based on what you've submitted. One question: What is the purpose of the exemption? What activities does the owner intend to conduct within the basins, if they are determined to be exempt? Lori Lori Haak Water Resources Coordinator City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chon hassen, MN 55317 Phone: 952.227.1135 Fax: 952.227.1935 Email: Ihaak@ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Meyerr Benjamin L [mailto:bmeyer@bonestroo.com] Sent: ThursdaYr November 16r 2006 8:47 AM To: Haakr Lori Subject: Ag. exemption determination Lori, 6/27/2007 Message , . 6/27/2007 Page 2 of 2 Attached is the wetland map for the Dorsey property. The wetland boundaries were estimated and GPS surveyed by me. The owner would like to apply for the Ag. Exemption, MN Rule 8420.0122 Subpart 1, D. which states that activities on agricultural lands are exempt in Type 1 and if less than 2 acres on Type 2 wetlands. The majority of the wetlands proposed for cultivation are reed canary grass dominated Type 1 wetlands. The only Type 2 wetland is the one that has the open water area on the east edge of the site. The open water was excavated pre-WCA. This is apparent on historic photos and the owner has the grading plan. Is is possible to grant the exemption based on the above information, do you need further information or should we meet sometime? Thanks, Ben Meyer, WDe Sr.Wetland Scientist Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Assoc. 2335 West Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 Direct Phone: 651-604-4767 Fax: 651-636-1311 Email: bmeyer@bonestroo.com Web: www.bonestroo.com Message .. Haak, Lori From: Meyer, Benjamin L [bmeyer@bonestroo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:47 AM To: Haak, Lori Subj ct: Ag. exemption determination Attachments: Dorsey wetland map.pdf Page 1 of 1 Lori, Attached is the wetland map for the Dorsey property. The wetland boundaries were estimated and GPS surveyed by me. The owner would like to apply for the Ag. Exemption, MN Rule 8420.0122 Subpart 1, D. which states that activities on agricultural lands are exempt in Type 1 and if less than 2 acres on Type 2 wetlands. The majority of the wetlands proposed for cultivation are reed canary grass dominated Type 1 wetlands. The only Type 2 wetland is the one that has the open water area on the east edge of the site. The open water was excavated pre-WCA. This is apparent on historic photos and the owner has the grading plan. Is is possible to grant the exemption based on the above information, do you need further information or should we meet sometime? Thanks, Ben Meyer, WDe Sr.Wetland Scientist Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Assoc. 2335 West Highway 36 S1. Paul, MN 55113 Direct Phone: 651-604-4767 Fax: 651-636-1311 Email: bmever@bonestroo.com Web: www.bonestroo.com 6/27/2007 " , , l ,; , " .....-.., "!'W'- - ~ ,~~, 'I', " . "~'m,"~,: '~~,i., :-"'",,^ \ - ""t.._,...~-~. ~.' '<;~'.i."""" ,,"",', ,---h""'~ 'l'.." ,'; :".., M., .'~'. (. "'"" .;. d~\"~ '!-'.'''<<'~.:c:,;.:; -., At..,., ~"'!' ......~~~!i:.;" ~" ......-'.. ...-..,,~.- ,.< ,:". .',iI;~':'~.'" .1!f.~,~< ~-"", .!?~ ",,", :r. ,~~.. .$. ~.~~~~~_~ RICK DORSEY DORSEY AND FOX AG. EXEMPTION EXHIBIT A ~ Bonestroo Rosene N i\i1 Anderlik & 0 300 ." Associates I I Scale in feet EngIneers & ArchItects 2005 AERIAL PHOTO November 13, 2006 GPS APPROX. WETLAND BOUNDARIES J:\8LM\Marketing\Oorsey Site Chanhassen\GPS map.dwg ',' ',,,; '. , , I '-,' "'I SA: MS s 14.06; 103B.lOl; 103B.3355; 103G.2242 HIST:IB SR 274; 22 SR 1877; 25 SR 152; 27 SR 135 : : I i 8420.0115 SCOPE OF EXEMPTION STANDARDS. Persons proposing to conduct an exempt activity are encouraged to contact the local government unit or the local government unit's designee for advice on determining whether a proposed project is eligible for an exemption and to evaluate alternatives to avoid or minimize wetland impacts. An activity is exempt if it qualifies for any,one of the exemptions, even though it maybe indicated as not exempt under another exemption. These exemptions do not apply to calcareous feris as ideritified by the commissioner. No exemptions apply to wetlands that have been previously restored or created as a result of an approved replacem'ent , , plan. All such wetlands are subject to replacement on subsequent drainage"excavation, or filling. Wetlands may not be partially drained, excavated, or filled in order to claim an exemption or no~loss deter~ination on the remainder. Therefore, no exemptions or no-loss determinations can be applied to the remaining wetland that would not have been applicable before the impact. Exemptions may not be combined on a wetland that is impacted by a project. Present and future owners of wetlands drained or filled wi thout' replacement unCl'er an exemption in part 8420.0122, subparts 1 and 2, item B, can'make no use of the wetland area after it is drained, excavated, or filled, other than as agricultural land, for ten years after the draining, ex6avating, or filling, unless it is first replaced under the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.222. Also, for ten ye~rs the' wetland may not" be restored for replacem'ent credit. Except for land in public ownership, at the time of draining, excavation, or filling, the landowner shall record a notice of, these restrictions in the office of the county recorder for the county in which the project is locaied. At a minimu~, the recorded document must contain the name or names of the . - . . landowners, a legal description of the property to which the. restrictions apply, a statement of' the restrictions, 'the date on which the ten-year period expires, the name of the local government which certified the exemption, if such'occurred, the' signatures of all owners, arid an acknowledgment. A person conducting an activity in a wetland under an exemption in part 8420.0122 shall ensure that: A. appropriate erosion control measures are taken to prevent sedimentation of the water; B. the activity does not block fish activity in a watercourse; and C. the activity is conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state, and local ~eq~irements, ! j 79 .__M__., -~_ -~ .C.-,.... .'-'-'".'-', i I I I . j "2 . . __ ., i ! i I I .:';:;::/ :.:: .1 .. ',j .. n<1 including best management practices as listed in part 8420.0112, and water resource protection requirements 'established under Minnesota Statute~, chapter 103H. SA: MS s l4.06~ 103B.10l~ 103B.3355~ 103G.2242 HIST: 18 SR 274~22 SR 1877~ 25 SR l52~ 27 SR 135 8420.0120 [Repealed, 22 SR 1877] 8420.0122 EXEMPTION STANDARDS. Subpart 1. Agricultural activities~ A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: A. activities in a wetland that was planted with annually seeded crops or was in a crop rotation seeding of. pasture grass or legumes in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991. Documentation, such as aerial photographs, United States Depar~~ent of Agriculture records, or affidavit of / landowner must be required by the localqovernment unit to show and use as evidence .for this exemption.. Land eligiblefor. this exemption must be wetland types 1 and 2; B. activities in a wetland that is or has been enrolled.in the federal Conservation.Reserve Program that was planted with annually seeded crops ,or was -in a crop rotation.. seeding in six of the last ten years prior to being enrolled in , , the program, and has not been restored with assistance .from a public or private wetland restoration program~ Federal documentation that the wetland is or has been enrolled in the federal Conser~ation Reserve Program may be used as . evidence for this exemption. The landowner must also meet the. same requirements of item A, except that the years required are at least six of the ten years ~recedingthe year of enrollment in the' federal Conservation Reserve Program. The landowner must also state in writing that the wetland was not restored with assistance from a public or private wetland restoration fund, or that the restoration was done under a contract or easement providing the landowner with the right to drain the restored wetland~ C. .activities in a wetland that has received a commenced drainage determination provided for by the federal Food Security Act of 1985, that was made to the county USDA office prior to September. 19, 1988, and a.ruling and any subsequent appeals or reviews have determined that drainage of the wetland had been commenced prior to December 23, 1985. The landowner must provide United States Department of Agriculture documents confirming that the county USDA office determined before September 19, 1988, that drainage had beguh before December 23, 1985, and that the determination has not been ". overturned by subsequent appeal or review and is not currently under administrative review~ D. (1) activities in a type 1 wetland on agricultural land, except for bottomland hardwood type 1 wetlands, and 80 ',MC--:_-C--~'_ ., 1 , .:' I .. '.. . .- -- j ~. . ", - - -. -. . . ., .... , -, . ~ " '. ~ . ,'-,' ,-. ,- -" . - ._--. >- .- -.-.~. ,. - - ..-. .,....- ',...- '.;., -'. .. '-'.. -'. ,,~.. 'o'. ',_. . .. -..... ;.. ~ -. , ..... '.......-' ..-'" ~ ,.' ..,,'~.,.... ..'...., .'. . '. ." . ~ - .'".. .'. I I I I .'. . . . j ." '.1- . . " i , ~1 activities in a type 2 or type 6 wetland that is less than two acres in siz~ and located on agricultural land~ /. (2) this exemption may be expanded to additional acreage, including types 1, 2, and 6 wetlands that are part.ofa larger wetland system, when the additional acreage is part of a conservation plan approved by the local. soil and water conservation district, the additiorial draining or filling is necessary for efficient operation of the farm, the hydrology of the larger wetland system is not adversely affected, and wetlands other than types 1, 2, and 6 are not drained or .filled~ (3) the exemption in subitem (2) is subject to the size limits included in 'subitem (l)~ E. aquaculture ac~ivities including pond excavation and construction and maintenance of associated access roads and dikes au~horized under, and conducted in accordance with, a permit issued by the United States Ariny Corps of Engineers under .section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, United States Code,. ,title 33, section 1344, but riot including construction or expansion of buildings~ . F. wild rice producti6n activities, including necessary diking and other activities authorized under a permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, United States Code, title 33, section 1344; G. normal agricultural practices to control noxious or secondary weeds as defined by rule of the commissioner of agriculture, in accordance with applicable requirements under state and federal law, including established best management practices~ and H. agricultural activities that are: (1) in a wetland~that is on agricultural larid annually enrolled irior determined to be eligible ~or b~nefits. under the federal Agriculture Improyement and Reform Act of 1996,. Public Law Number 104-127; or (2) subject to subsequent federal farm program restrictions that meet minimum.state standards.under this chapter and Minnesota Statute~, sections l03A.202 and 103B.3355, and that have been approved by the board of water and soil resources, the commissioners of natural resources and agriculture,. and the pollution control agency. The approved conditions and standards shall be noticed by the board ~o local government units and published in the State Register. The conditions and standards shall take effect 30 dayi after publication and remain in effect unless 'superseded by subsequent statute, rule, or notice in the State Register. This exemption may be applied to a~ricultural land annually enrolled in the federal Farm Program as long as wetlands are not drained, excavated, or filled beyond what is: (a) allowed under the other exemptions in this.part~ ;~:. 81 !, i ! , , I' '" ',' i' J ~I: Ji 'ilit Ji '1"1 H ,Ii Ii Ii Ilil ~il : ~: i .<[i . 'Iii 1 , :Ji! ~ 11 (b) necessary to replace, maintain, or repair existing private drainage infrastructure with a capacity not to exceed that which was originally constructed; or ,(c) replaced at a ratio of 1:1 or greater under United~$tates Department of Agriculture provisions as supported by documentation from the United States Department of Agriculture which must be included as evidence to support this exemption. If the activity would result in loss of eligibility, the landowner cannot qualify for the exemption. Subp. 2. Drainage. , A. For the purposes of this subpart, "public drainage system" means a drainage sistem as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section l03E.OOS, subdivision 12, and any ditch or tile lawfully' connected to the drainage system. B. A replacement plan is not required for draining of type 1 wetlands, or up to five acres of type 2 or type 6 wetlands, in an unincorporated area on land that has been assessed drainage benefits for a public drainage system, provided that: (1) during the 20-year period that ended January 1, 1992: (a) there was an expenditure made from the drainage system account for the public drainage system; (b) the public drainage system was repaired or maintained as approved by the drainage authority; or (c) no repair or maintenance of the public drainage system was required under Minnesota Statutes, section 103E.705, subdivision 1, as determined by the public drainage authority; and (2) the wetlands are not drained for conversion to: (a) platted lots; (b) planned unit, commercial, or industrial developments; or (c) any development with more than one residential unit per 40 acres. If wetlands drained under this item are converted to uses prohibited under subitem (2) during the ten-year period following drainage, the wetlands must 'be replaced under Minnesota Statutes, section l03G.222. C. A replacement plan is not required for draining, excavating, or filling of wetlands, except for draining types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands that have been in existence for more than 25 years, resulting from maintenance and repair of existing public drainage systems conducted or authorized by a public drainage authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103E. D. A replacement plan is not required for draining, excavating, or filling of wetlands, except for draining wetlands that have been in existence for more than 25 years, resulting 82 than public drainage systems. For items C arid D, the landowner must provide documentation that the wetlands which will be partially or completely drained by the maintenance have not existed for more than- '2S).years. Documentation may include, but is not limited to: ~ a~rial photographs, climatological records, soil borings, vegetative analysis, elevation ~urveys, or sworn affidavits. E. A replacement plan is not required for draining, excavating, or filling of wetlands resulting from activities conducted as part of a public drainage system improvement project that received final approval from the drainage authority before July 1, 1991, and after July 1, 1986, if: (1) the approval remains valid; (2) the project remains active; and (3) no additional drainage will occur beyond that originally approved. F. The public drainage authority may, as part of the repair, install control structures, realign the ditch, construct dikes along the ditch, or make other modifications as necessary to prevent drainage of the wetland. G. Wetlands and public waters of all types that could be drained as a part of a public drainage repair project are eligible for the permanent wetlands p~eserve program established under Minnesota Statutes, section 103F.516. The board shall give priority to acquisition of easements on types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands that have been in existence for more than 25 years on public drainage systems and other wetlands that have the greatest risk of drainage from a public drainage repair project. 'Subp. 3. Federal approvals. A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities described in items A and B. A. Activities exempted from federal regulation under United States Code, title 33, section 1344(f), as in effect on January 1, 1991. --The local government unit may certify the exemption only if the landowner furnishes proof of qualification for one of the exemptions from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. This exemption does not apply to a project with the purpose of converting a wetland to a nonwetland, either immediately or gradually, or converting the wetland to another use, or when the fill will result in significant discernibl~ change to the flow or circulation of water in the wetland, or partly draining it, or reducing the wetland area. B. Activities authorized under section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, United States Code, title 33, section 1344, or section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, United States Code, title 33, section 403, and regulations that meet minimum state standards under this chapter and that have been approved by the board of water and soil resources, the 83 I,ir Jl ;' , I"',: ::,: i ~:' 1 I ;:_I>'i. ;ji: f, I', ,\ 1"':" I"in ,,: ~ t t' 1"- III ~: i'li;' ri: f I ~:' f .;~.. I, !' , (, ~: f ~ i I J , ~ J "t f j, ~ ~: fI._" f, ~ I" " !: . W. If " II , 'f r f f r ',I, -.'.. , fn .. f ( I ~ ! t , f 'h.. ~.~" V f " . ) j; ~. .' : f:" ,: t , ~~. !i.~~~~ I i ------' -- - ',7 -~ - --, -'~~- :'N ---1 I I i t 1 i ';;:':~:3<. ,.,. ,! , ,'I 'i i , - i "! I I. I I I ~ "I i I c. The local, government unit and soil and water conservation district may charge processing fees in amounts not greater than are necessary to cover the reasonable, costs of implementing thi~ chapter and for technical and administrative assistance to landowners in processing other applipClt~(:ms for projects affecting wetlands. SA: MS s l4.06;103B.10l;'103B.3355; 103G.2242 HIST: 18SR 274; 22 SR 1877: 25 SR 152; 27 SR135 ; 8420.0210 EXEMPTION DETERMINATIONS. A landowner intending to drain or fill a wetland without replacement, claiming exemption under part 8420.0122, may contact the local government unit before beginning draining or filling activities for determination whether or not the activity is exempt. A landowner, who does not request a determi,nation' may be subject, to the enforcement provisions in part 8420.029cr and Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.2372. The local government ,unit must keep:on file all documentatibn and findings of fact concerning exemption determinations for a period of ten years. An exemption may apply whether ,or not ,the local government ' unit has made an exemption determination. If the landowner requests an exemption determination, then the local government unit must make one. " The landowner applyin~ for exemption is responsible for' submitting theproofne6essary to,show qualification for the particular exemption claimed, including proof of the requisite property rights to do the activity. The local ~overnment unit may evaluate evidence for an exemption without making a determination. The local government unit decision shall be based on the' exemptions standards in part 8420.0122. 'If the decision require~ a firtding 6f wetiand ~ize or t~pe, the local government, unit should seek the advice of the tebhnical panel as described, in part 8420~0240. The local government. unit decision must be " made in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 15.99. 'The local government ,unit decision must be sent to the landowner, members of the technical evaluation panel; the watershed district or water managemeni organization if there ii one, ,the com~issioner of natural resources, and individual members of the public who request a copy within ten working days of the decision. SA: MS s 14.06; 103B.lOl; 103B.3355; 103G.2242 HIST: 18 SR 274; 22 ~R 1877: 25,SR 152; 27 SR 135 "i "} 8420.0220 NO-LOSS DETERMINATIONS. A landowner unsureifprop6sed work will result in a loss , of wetl~nd may apply to the local government unit for a determination. A landowner who does not request a determination may be subject to the enforcement p~ovisions in part 8420.0290 and Minnesota Statutes, section ~03G.2372. The local government 89 v~ ~ ITY 0 F CHANHASSEN 51 .c. - DATE: 1/4/89 C.C. DATE: 1/23/89 CASE NO: 88-16 WAP Prepared by: Hanson/v ,STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Wetland alteration permit for alteration of a Class B wetland on property zoned A-2 to create a wildlife pond. t- Z <{ () :J 0.. a.. <( /'1tiKm by city ,!'\dmln!strnW EndOr$Ad_,,~_.~~_._"r.~ Pr- MGdiH8d,~........",~~-...~,--.-....~ .........,n"< LOCATION: 1551 Lyman Boulevard. Re j8r.tsd.--_.---,-..,-~,........-~....,~.-......-. APPLICANT: Patricia and George Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 D2l8..._,_,_..__",._.,,~-_~_,._. Date SUl)f!1i"t;;{Jd i:a [Gmmi~~sJo~ I-LJ-g1 -'f.jitSt~b-;;;;U~~{t;-GD~i-' ~_.J..:.. ~ 3 ~,~~L~. PRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate ACREAGE: 40 Acres DENSITY: ~ ~ lLJ WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site. I- - (f) PHYSICAL CHARAC.: The site generally slopes to the south and west with the Class B wetland located to the south. ADJACENT ZONING AND Ll\ND USE: N- A-2, Residences S- A-2, Agricultural E- A-2, Agricultural W- A-2, Agricultural 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Agricultural. r- - '..~" '. . ._~, ^-,,(&~I~ ..IJ [;'~\Of\ v)a*t~ ~po~~ . ~. .;.,,,:;, ,.' ...... - Dorsey WAP January 4, 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20.421 requires a wetland alteration permit for the creation of a pond within a Class B wetland. BACKGROUND The applicants have met with staff to discuss the creation of a wildlife pond on their property. Jo Ann Olsen met with Dr. Elizabeth Rockwell of the Fish and Wildlife Service on site. Dr. Rockwell felt that construction of the pond in the wetland would be beneficial if the standard six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife service were followed. Those conditions are outlined in Attachment #1. ANALYSIS The applicant has provided a proposed plan for the pond. This plan provides a free-form shape with appropriate slopes. The bottom of the pond will be uneven as specified in the third con- dition of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The basin will have a water level control. The applicant needs to place a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland being filled) on the bot- tom of the basin. A fringe of shrubs needs to be added on the upland surrounding the basin. The applicant has noted the disposal site for materials to be excavated and provided erosion control measures on the downslope side of the disposal site. RECOMMENDATION The planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit No. 88-16 with the following conditions: 1. Written approval of the alteration plan from the Fish and Wildlife Service that the proposal conforms to their six con- ditions for ponds. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission recommended approval as noted above with staff's recommended condition. STAFF UPDATE After the Planning Commission meeting I talked with Paul Burke of the Fish and Wildlife Service and he stated the plans as proposed by Dorsey were acceptable and recommended approval as submitted. . . e Dorsey WAP January 4, 1989 Page 3 CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #88-16, sub- ject to the plans stamped "Received December 12, 1988". , . . ." :"-'~ ... LAND DEVELOPHENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 ~ '~S-lc..LC:V <l 1""\ V'\ APPLICANT: G' e.n t"'G E?- J. ~(,'5e. '/ ADDRESS IS.s / !-.l[ ma.\I\ .~ l \1 d v o /bY\~'S~v\_ \'v\ Y\ $~' 7 Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) )I ~ /-03/ ~ <I '. . ~~ . OWNER: G e~r~Q..., ~r~ ~ ~t;:;Ci~ ADDRESS IS?; I 1-. ~ ~ ~ \ v& . C~~~c.se",~\'\55 a t7 ~ - Zip Code TELEPHONE 44~-/RPo REQUEST: " Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development ~ Zoning Appeal Zoning variance Sketch Plan ---- preliminary plan ---- Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdi vision . ~. Land Use Plan Amendment Platting ---- Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Site plan R.eview Street/Easement Vacation >< Wet.lands Permit PROJECT NAME PRESENT LAND USE PLAN ,DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING ~ USES PROPOSED \;lJcr'<\-J \ X SIZE OF PROPERTY &.I- 0 a..C-r e..5 ~ LOCATION ---.h\ W ~ SlO Ytj '3~.;l~ 'Wf tI Ct, K~';(3 . K REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST (',e~ ~ ~ ~ i G.A~.A~ ~ '.-vi J_ LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) , . , . ,.._'''".;.!,,'W~ JiII'lt;.;;;;:~~Ji'i~~1~_i,~~-,':,:h , " , City of Chanhassen Land Development Application P ag e 2 ~. .: FILING INSTRUCTIONS: This applicqtion must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable Cit.yordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner to determiAe the specific ot'Q.inanc.e and procedut'al requirements applicable to your application. " FILING CERTIFICATION: '. The undersigned' representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances. ~ . Signed By Date /a.-L~-cg~ The undersigned hereby certLfies that the applicant has been authorized to make this app~ication for the property herein described. Signed By Date Application Received /;l-/:2.-gS Application Fee Paid ~;Z~ City Receipt No. + jSCJ3 r Date I;;}, -' I d- - ~V ~ ;).S ty/(JU wncu lf~ ,J,O ~j -?Ife..- fW-) " . fOpoG\Ul~ . ~1'V1 q; li-l~. '.P~ . . . I,/...U.\'~~e;; fl u- t..-ll\)..... fd e..-f' l.b?-fO . e.Y'l.6~ l~ c.o--t;;tdl 'Pruf, ~1CO~~'D * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commissionl Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting. .~ , t' . . - It 690 City of Chanhassen Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)937-1900 fr ~~;-;:~1~~4J) REGION VI tVATERS' - SteohenHanson. city planner. Date: December 13, 1988 To: Develornent Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Subject: 'W9tland AI teration Pennit to create a pOnd in a Class B wetland on property zoned A-2, Aqricultural Estate and located at 1551 ~ Blvd. Planning Case: 88-16 WAP(I):)rsey) The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Depart.'lleI1t on ~ce..'Tiber 12, 1qRR In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comnents and recomnendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and pro- posed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a \<<i tten report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Comnission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Corrmission on January 4, 1988 at 7 :30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your cormnents by no later than December 23, 1988 You may also appear at the Planning Comnission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments ~ City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Public Safety Director e. Building Inspector OWaterShed District Engi~eer 3. Soil Conservation Service MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (NW Bell or United) 9. Electric Company (NSP or MN Valley) 10. I)(W)EN Cable System 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 11. Roger Machmeier/Jim Anderson {i) U. S. Fish and wildlife 13. Carver County Engineer 5. U. S. Anny Corps of Engineers 6. Minnegasco 14. Other \ 2-1~...ee"' ~ ; M DIIlRj)YllhtuA ~ tM.Q. to~ IN'-- ~~, ~~ "."",""'~~';";;lc~Li~.""";p.,.,-. . ,~ 'I' C'TY Of CHANHASSEN RECE1\lED . F\ '"'' 'i '? ~gB8 l, "d ~ ...J I CHANHASSEN PLANNiNG DEPT. , ." , '. '" ,'~,-,,". " ',"- . '..:, ~ + . .. ~ '~'" -"""'" ~"....,-,_.._---,......,----_.....--'...-. -~:;"-=--.':'" ~~~ ------ \ \ ----~ \ \ \ NO. \_-~- L.YMAN--- BLVD-:--- C.S.A. HW't. o' 50' 100' I~' , , 12-10-12 m: o PROPOSED POND C EROSION CONTROL o DISPOSAL SITE ~Op06fDI [)o~?eY f<3Nt ~. '; . , Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 40 PUBLIC HEARING: * WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CREATE A POND IN A CLASS B WETLAND ON . ""'PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT 1551 LYMAN BOULEVARD, GEORGE DORSEY. Public Present: George Dorsey, Applicant Rick Dorsey Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Rick Dorsey: I just have one comment. The question being the shrubs on the upland side. We will do that if necessary but introducing something to the area that's not natural, we question the need for it. ElIson: Is that under one of the six conditions? Conrad: No, it's just under the analysis portion. Dr. Rockwell is really quite a good expert that we have a lot of confidence in. Any other public comments. Headla moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: I went on that field trip with Dr. Rockwell and Jo Ann. She spoke very highly of what they're proposing and I don't remember any' discussion of shrubs at all. That's all I have to say. I'm highly in favor of it. Wildermuth: It's refreshing to see somebody creating a wetland rather than trying to fill one in. Is that a topographical map Steve? Hanson: Yes, it is. Wildermuth: On the north side of the pond where we're proposing that the shrubline be put in. Hanson: Let me clarify one thing on the shrub line. The reason I put that in the memo is when you look at the six conditions of the Fish and Game, there's a reference in there. The shrub plantings around it. I have not been privy as to whether Dr. Rockwell may have suggested that as a condition or not so either include it as just one of the standard conditions that they normally have utlized for that improvement. Wildermuth: What I'm wondering is what's the difference in elevation between the surface of the pond and where the proposed shrubline would be? Hanson: The top surface of the pond is, I believe it's 889 versus 890 up here. Very shallow. . f '. . . . . Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 41 wildermuth: If we did persist in requiring that shrubline in there, it would essentially block the view of the pond from the... Rick Dorsey: They would also probably die. Wildermuth: What's your feeling on that Steve? Hanson: My feel on it is, I put it in there because it's listed in our standard conditions and that's why in the recommendation I said pending getting that written response from the Fish and Wildlife on what their recommendation on how to those six standards would be applied to this particular case. What the applicant is saying is what they recommend, I don't have a problem with that. I'm not asking for something more. Wildermuth: I'm not either. Batzli: I assume that, is this the plan that you received from the applicant that we're looking at here? Hanson: Yes. Batzli: I guess I'd like to see, typically on a wetland alteration permit we reference the plan with what they're going to do and I'd like to see that included either in any proposal or recommendation that we want to put that you're recommending approval of the wetland permit based on plans that we've got in front of us. I don't have a good feel at all for whether they need shrubs or not to be quite honest with you. I don't recall that being one of the six conditions. I know I see them there but I never recall seeing that one before so it surprises me. I guess I would leave it to the experts in this being the Fish and Wildlife Service saying whether they think it's required in this. If the person visited the site and never mentioned it, I say we can leave that one off but I would like to see that what they're going to do here is what we see in front of us tonight. Ellson: I'm pretty much in agreement with all these guys. I'll go along with what the experts say but it seems to be like some of the other things. I wish we would have had it as of now. Maybe we should be giving people dates as to when they get all their ducks in a row or what have you but here we are again approving something without the other thing again, but I could do that. That's about it. Emmings: This is the first one of three that your application doesn't say a damn thing. Conrad: Steve, it's not the right one. I wasn't even going to bring that up. Emmings: I like the reasoning though. Required by the City. It looks to me from the six conditions that if there's going to be any shrubs at all, they're actually supposed to be right down by the edge of the water is what it sounds like.. Not up the hill but again, I'll go along with , f ~ .... ...'~ , ~ , ..... Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 42 everybody else in that. I think it's a reasonable approach to run the plan by Fish and Wildlife. If they're satisfied that it meets their conditions, that's certainly fine with me. Otherwise, it looks like a fine plan. Erhart: I think it's a great plan. I also think that placing shrubs down there is an expense that's unneeded because in that area, what's going to grow is going to grow and what's going to die is going to die. There's so much vegetation there that it would quickly reseed itself and that will take care of itself and go back to it's natural state. Conrad: Yes, I like the plan and I don't think we need the shrubs. Is there a motion? Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-16 based on the plans stamped received, I'd like staff to fill in when they were received, subject to the following conditions and then the 1 condition that's set forth by the staff. Ernmings: Second. Batzli moved, Ernmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-16 based on the plans stamped "Received December 12, 1988" and subject to the following condition: 1. Written approval of the alteration plan from the Fish and Wildlife Service that the proposal conforms to their six conditions for ponds. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DREDGE SILT ACCUMULATION FROM AN EXISTING CHANNEL IN A CLASS A WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED GENERALLY SOUTH OF THE LOTS FRONTING ON WASHTA BAY ROAD, MINNEWASHTA MANOR CHANNEL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Public Present: Name Address Harry Niemela 2901 Washta Bay Road Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Conrad: Does it meet our ordinance? Hanson: As far as the disposal area? City of Chanhassen Carver and Hennepin counti~:tnn-e's-ota~ -\ / ) In the matter of Chanhassen Planning Case' : 88-16 wetland Alterati<fu pennit Owner: Ibrsey & Ibrsey APPlil~se:y'--""'----'/ Street Address: 1551 Lyrran Boulevard . P. I . N .: 2500230400 Zoning District: A-2, Agricultural Estate The above entitled matter was heard before the planning Cbmmission on January 4, 1989 and up for final action before the Chanhassen City Council on January 23, 1989 The City Council ordered that a v.etland alteration permit (~ be granted based upon the documentation contained in Planning File 88-16 Wetland Alteration Permit subject to the plans in file dated December 12, 1988. . OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF CARVER Filing Fee"il/: 10 This is to certi y that this docl,L!)1ent ~ile in t~ office o/1AJ'leKday o 19J1LA.D.at~o'clock M. and was duly recorded as document no.. State of Minnesota) )ss Carver County ) :108338 CARL W. HANSON JR. ~~~Co"~~ M_Y:iG_G_ ~ I, Stephen Hmson City Planner for the City of Chanhassen, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing with the original record thereof, and have found the same to be a correct and true summary thereof. Witness my hand and official seal of Chanhassen, Minnesota, this 30th day of Janlla:r:y , 19.8.9.. ~ Chanhas en City Planner r "" 'c.; ,,":' ~ \' __:N rd . ,4 l ~ > '.."," -."... " /, ,\,' . . . . . ~- ; I I .. ,",:c'"'~=''''-':-~'''''~'''"''''''''' ~ ~ ') NPWRC :: Wetlands of the United States - Their Extent and Their Value to Waterfowl an... Page 1 of 4 Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Wetlands of the United States Their Extent and Their Value To Waterfowl and Other Wildlife By Samuel P. Shaw and C. Gordon Fredine Preface Undisturbed marshes, swamps, and overflow lands have many inherent values and a variety of uses. This report is confined to the use of these natural wetlands by wildlife. Millions of Americans rely on wild animals to furnish them with healthful outdoor recreation. Other values of wetlands include the storage of ground water, the retention of surface water for farm uses, the stabilization of runoff, the reduction or prevention of erosion, the production of timber, the creation of firebreaks, the provision of an outdoor laboratory for students and scientists, and the production of cash crops such as minnows (for bait), marsh hay, wildrice, blueberries, cranberries, and peat moss. Some wetlands provide good fishing. This report points out relative values of different types of wetlands to wild game in general and to waterfowl in particular. It locates and describes areas that should be protected and improved to meet the needs of a stable or increasing waterfowl population. The information is presented with the fervent hope that it will assist and stimulate the establishment of more comprehensive land-use programs and policies. The inventory was financed largely by funds derived from the sale of Federal Duck Stamps. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/uswetlanlindex.htm 7/1212007 NPWRC :: Wetlands of the United States - Their Extent and Their Value to Waterfowl an... Page 2 of 4 The wetlands data on which this report is based were gathered by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the cooperation of various State fish and game agencies. Much of the assessment of waterfowl values was made by State biologists for their respective States. This resource is based on the following source: Shaw, Samuel P. and C. Gordon Fredine 1956. Wetlands of the United States - their extent and their value to waterfowl and other wildlife. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D,C. Circular 39. 67pp. This resource should be cited as: Shaw, Samuel P. and C. Gordon Fredine 1956. Wetlands of the United States - their extent and their value to waterfowl and other wildlife. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Circular 39. Northern Prairie wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/uswetlan/index.htm (Version 05JAN99) . Summary of Chapters The Problem of Saving Wetlands . The nature of wetlands . Cooperative planning A Century of Wetland Exploitation . Swamp Land Acts of 1849, 1850, and 1860 . Previous inventories . Evidences of wetland losses . Organized drainage enterprises . Other destructive forces Wetland Soils . Peats and mucks . Alluvial soils . Future outlook The Wetlands Inventory . Areas covered . Classification . Evaluation The 20 Wetland Types . Inland fresh areas . Inland saline areas . Coastal fresh areas . Coastal saline areas Use of the Inventory . Water-control and land-use planning http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/uswetlanlindex.htm 7/1212007 NPWRC :: Wetlands of the United States - their Extent and Their Value to Waterfowl an... Page 3 of 4 . Flyway management . Wetland preservation and development . Encouraging local wetland projects Public Waterfowl Areas . Role of refuges . Refuges under public control . Refuges and hunting . Refuge management . Future of refuge programs Improving Wetlands for Waterfowl Contributions to Other Wildlife Glossary of Plant Names List of References Text Figures Figure 1 -- Agricultural land (acreage as of Jan. 1, 1950) in drainage enterprises Figure 2 -- Extent and present value of wetland types Figure 3 n Flyway areas used in analyzing the relative importance of wetland types to waterfowl Figure 4 n Typical bog and a dam which made the bog into a good waterfowl pond in New Hampshire Figure 5 -- Horicon Marsh in Dodge County, Wis. Figure 6 n Pothole blasted by Wisconsin Conservation Department in Rat River Marsh, Winnebago County, Wis. Figure 7 n Highway pond above Portsmouth, N.H., where new turnpike was used as a dam to impound a former salt marsh Figure 8 -- Fenced stock-water pond in eastern Montana Figure 9 n Marsh in Cattaraugus County, N.Y., Showing stages of watrefowl habitat- improvement project Figure 10 -- Willow Slough State game Preserve, Newton County, Ind. Figure 11 n Pheasant hunters in marsh in Emmett County, Iowa Figure 12 -- Beaver pond in Michigan, which created good waterfowl habitat Plates Plate 1 -- Seasonally flooded basins or flats Plate 2 n Inland fresh meadows Plate 3 -- Inland shallow fresh marshes Plate 4 -- Inland deep fresh marshes Plate 5 -- Inland open fresh water Plate 6 -- Shrub swamps Plate 7 -- Wooded swamps Plate 8 -- Bogs Plate 9 -- Inland saline flats Plate 10 -- Inland saline marshes Plate 11 -- Inland open saline water Plate 12 -- Coastal shallow fresh marshes Plate 13 -- Coastal deep fresh marshes Plate 14 n Coastal open fresh water Plate 15 -- Coastal salt flats http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/uswetlanlindex.htm 7/1212007 NPWRC :: Wetlands of the United States - Their Extent and 'Their Value to Waterfowl an... Page 4 of 4 Plate 16 -- Coastal salt meadows Plate 17 -- Irregularly flooded salt marshes Plate 18 -- Regularly flooded salt marshes Plate 19 -- Sounds and bays Plate 20 -- Mangrove swamps Plate 21 -- Distribution of wetlands of the United States Tables Table 1 n Acreage granted to States for swamp reclamation Table 2 n Change in wetland acreage since 1850 Table 3 n Growth and condition of land in drainage enterprises for specified years Table 4 n Estimated acreage of fertile, undeveloped land that is physically feasible to provide with drainage in selected humid sections of the United States, 1948 Table 5 n Description and acreage of wetland types in the United States Table 6 -- Values of wetlands to waterfowl, based on State-unit determinations Table 7 n Use of wetland types by game and fur animals Table 8 n Number of game and fur species using wetlands Downloading Instructions n Instructions on downloading and extracting files from this site. II uswetlan.zip (3.7M) -- Wetlands of the United States Installation: Extract all files and open index.htm in a web browser. U.S. Department of the Interior I U.S. Geological Survey URL: http:j jwww.npwrc.usgs.govjresourcejwetlandsjuswetlanjindex.htm Page Contact Information: npwrc@usgs.gov Page Last Modified: August 24, 2006 http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/uswetlanlindex.htm 7/12/2007 NPWRC:: Wetlands of U.S. Page 1 of 12 Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Wetlands of the United States Their Extent and Their Value To Waterfowl and Other Wildlife The 20 Wetland Types . Inland fresh areas . Inland saline areas . Coastal fresh areas . Coastal saline areas This chapter describes the 20 wetland types in relation to their usefulness as habitat for waterfowl. Wetlands do not all fit neatly into definite type classifications. In this connection the Wetlands Classification Committee reports: Because of the infinitely varied and intergrading physical and chemical conditions that underlie the complex of wetlands in this country, it would be impossible to create a useful classification system that completely avoids over-lapping of types recognized. Some degree of overlapping . . . is acknowledged, but it is believed that they are sufficiently distinct to serve satisfactorily in evaluations of wetlands. [9] In practical use, however, the system has served its intended purpose effectively. The 20 types of wetlands are grouped under four categories: INLAND FRESH AREAS (Types 1 to 8), http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/uswetlan/types.htm 7/12/2007 NPWRC:: Wetlands of U.S. Page 2 of 12 INLAND SALINE AREAS (Types 9 to 11), COASTAL FRESH AREAS (Types 12 to 14), and COASTAL SALINE AREAS (Types 15 to 20). In each category, the types are arranged in order of increasing water depths during the growing season. Types 6, 7, and 20, and oftentimes Type 8, are characterized by growths of shrubs or trees. From the standpoint of acreage, Type 1 (Seasonally flooded basins and flats) is the most abundant, and Type 14 (Coastal open fresh water) is the least abundant. Figure 2 names each type in numerical order and indicates its area and value as waterfowl habitat. In this figure, and in the type maps included in the plates at the end of the report, Primary Importance refers to wetland areas rated as high or moderate in value to waterfowl in the State inventories. The total acreage of primary importance in the United States is 22.4 million. Since this figure is derived by totaling values for individual States, it should not be inferred that the percentages used in figure 2 apply uniformly throughout the country. It is generally true, however, that the values of most individual types tend to be rather consistent from one part of the country to another. Figure 3 shows the United States divided into eight flyway areas. The heavy lines running north and south are administrative boundaries of the four flyways commonly referred to in waterfowl management. The heavy east and west lines roughly divide each flyway into northern and southern halves. The eight resulting areas are convenient units for studying the abundance and importance of wetland types. Most waterfowl breeding in the United States occurs in the four northern flyway areas, and most of the important wintering grounds are in the four southern ones. Although there is considerable overlapping of these seasonal activities, particularly in States along the line between north and south, wetlands in the four northern areas generally make their most important contribution to breeding waterfowl, and those in the southern areas are used principally for wintering. Wetlands in all eight flyway areas serve as habitat during migration; in some instances their primary value lies in this heavy use by migrant birds. There follows a brief description of each wetland type, with mention of its more important physical and vegetative characteristics and a table of its acreage by flyway areas. At the end of the report are 20 plates which include for each of the wetland types a map showing its general location, abundance, and waterfowl value, and a photograph of an area representative of the type. The type-distribution maps are not comparable in acres-per-dot representation; they vary from 1 dot for 500 acres in Type 14 to 1 dot for 50,000 acres in Type 1. This variation is necessary because of the tremendous range in acreage totals among the 20 wetland types (see table 5). The dots are based on county acreage data; each dot is located in or close to the county to which it applies. When acreages for two or more counties are combined in order to equal the amount represented by one dot, the dot is close to the geographic center of the counties involved. The symbols used to show relative waterfowl values by flyway areas are standardized for all the type maps. These symbols show what proportion of the habitat of a particular type in a particular flyway area is judged to be of primary importance to waterfowl, as follows: http://www .npwrc. us gs. gov /resource/wetl ands/uswetlan/types.htrn 7/12/2007 NPWRC:: Wetlands of U.S. Page 3 of 12 VVETLAND ACREAGE RATED OF PRlMARY IMPORTANCE ~ 3/4 TO ALL j 112 TO 3/4 1/4 TO 112 r~ LESS THAN 1/4 INLAND FRESH AREAS Type 1 -- Seasonally flooded basins or flats (pl.1). The soil is covered with water, or is waterlogged, during variable seasonal periods but usually is well drained during much of the growing season. This type is found both in upland depressions and in overflow bottom lands. Along river courses, flooding occurs in late fall, winter, or spring. In the uplands, basins or flats may be filled with water during periods of heavy rain or melting snow. Vegetation varies greatly according to the season and the duration of flooding. It includes bottom-land hardwoods as well as some herbaceous growths. Where the water has receded early in the growing season, smartweeds, wild millet, fall panicum, tealgrass, chufa, redroot cyperus, and weeds (such as marsh elder, ragweed, and cockleburs) are likely to occur. Shallow basins that are submerged only very temporarily usually develop little or no wetland vegetation. Upland depressions included in the inventory are confined largely to the three Lake States, the two Dakotas, Montana, and the Panhandle of Texas. In the northern States the presence of this temporary water stimulates high waterfowl production by providing greater area for the establishment of territories by breeding pairs. When water occurs abundantly in the Panhandle, the temporarily flooded basins (playas) are used extensively by migrating and wintering waterfowl. The overflow bottom lands in the southern part of the Mississippi Flyway provide a major wintering area for ducks as well as good shooting sites for hunters. Particularly in good mast years, feeding ducks use bottom lands when they are flooded. Although there remain more than 10 million acres of overflow lands in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, most of the wintering waterfowl in this flyway concentrate in certain key areas. IFlyway area: Acres Ipacific north 102,600 IPacific south 143,400 ICentral north 357,700 ICentral south 2,856,400 IMiSSiSSippi north 1,134,000 IMiSSiSSippi south II 11,945,400 IAtlantic north II 1,200 IAtlantic south II 6,551,400 Type 2 -- Inland fresh meadows. (pI.2). The soil usually is without standing water during most of the growing season but is waterlogged within at least a few inches of its surface. Vegetation includes http://www.npwfc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/uswetlan/types.htm 7/12/2007 NPWRC :: Wetlands of U.S. Page 4 of 12 grasses, sedges, rushes, and various broad-leaved plants. In the North, representative plants are carex rushes, redtop, reedgrasses, mannagrasses, prairie cordgrass, and mints. In Florida, cordgrasses and various species of paspalums and beakrushes are common. Meadows may fill shallow lake basins, sloughs, or farmland sags, or these meadows may border shallow marshes on the landward side. Wild hay oftentimes is cut from such areas. Fresh meadows are used somewhat in the North by nesting waterfowl, but in most of the country their value is mainly as supplemental feeding areas. If shallow water can be impounded on them, their value can be increased considerably. IFlyway area: Acres 1 Ipacific north 43,2001 IPacific south 289,5001 ICentral north 578,8001 ICentral south 40,7001 IMiSSiSSippi north 2,383,3001 IMiSSiSSiPPi south 68,7001 IAtlantic north 30,7001 IAtlantic south 4,083,7001 Type 3 -- Inland shallow fresh marshes (pI.3.) The soil is usually waterlogged during the growing season; often it is covered with as much as 6 inches or more of water. Vegetation includes grasses, bulrushes, spikerushes, and various other marsh plants such as cattails, arrowheads, pickerelweed, and smartweeds. Common representatives in the North are reed, whitetop, rice cutgrass, carex, and giant burreed. In the Southeast, maidencane, sawgrass, arrowhead, and pickerelweed are characteristic. These marshes may nearly fill shallow lake basins or sloughs, or they may border deep marshes on the landward side. They are also common as seep areas on irrigated lands. Marshes of this type are used extensively as nesting and feeding habitat in the pothole country of the North Central States and elsewhere. In combination with deep fresh marshes (Type 4), they constitute the principal production areas for waterfowl. Florida and Georgia are the only States where the majority of the shallow fresh marshes are considered to be of lesser importance to waterfowl. Florida alone contains more than 2 million acres of this type. IFlyway area: Acres 1 Ipacific north 33,7001 Ipacific south 64,1001 ICentral north 817,6001 ICentral south 84,6001 IMiSSiSSippi north 758,5001 IMiSSiSSippi south I 15,3001 IAtlantic north II 35,9001 IAtlantic south II 2,159,9001 Type 4 -- Inland deep fresh marshes (piA). The soil is covered with 6 inches to 3 feet or more of water during the growing season. Vegetation includes cattails, reeds, bulrushes, spikerushes, and wildrice. In open areas, pondweeds, naiads, coontail, watermilfoils, waterweeds, duckweeds, http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/uswetlan/types.htm 7/1212007 NPWRC:: Wetlands of U.S. Page 5 of 12 waterlilies, or spatterdocks may occur. Water-hyacinth and waterprimroses form surface mats in some localities in the Southeast. These deep marshes may almost completely fill shallow lake basins, potholes, limestone sinks, and sloughs, or they may bdrder open water in such depressions. Deep fresh marshes constitute the best breeding habitat in the country, and they are also important feeding places. In the Western States they are heavily used by migrating birds, especially diving ducks. Florida and Texas are the only States in which the vast majority of these marshes are not rated as being of primary importance to waterfowl. IFlywayarea: Acres 1 Ipacific north 92,5001 IPacific south 62,5001 ICentral north 686,5001 ICentral south 46,8001 IMiSSiSSippi north 427,7001 IMiSSiSSippi south 21,5001 IAtlantic north 25,7001 IAtlantic south 984,1001 Type 5 -- Inland open fresh water (pI.5). Shallow ponds and reservoirs are included in this type. Water is usually less than 10 feet deep and is fringed by a border of emergent vegetation. Vegetation (mainly at water depths of less than 6 feet) includes pondweeds, naiads, wildcelery, coontail, watermilfoils, muskgrasses, waterlilies, spatterdocks, and (in the South) water-hyacinth. In the pothole country of the North Central States, Type 5 areas are used extensively as brood areas when, in midsummer and late summer, the less permanent marshes begin to dry out. The borders of such areas are used for nesting throughout the Northern States. Where vegetation is plentiful, they are used in all sections of the country as feeding and resting areas by ducks, geese, and coots, especially during the migration period. IFlyway area: Acres I Ipacific north 40,5001 IPacific south 51,9001 ICentral north 676,8001 ICentral south 87,1001 IMississippi north 1,000,2001 IMiSSiSSippi south 186,5001 IAtlantic north I 12,0001 IAtlantic south II 541,5001 Type 6 -- Shrub, swamps (pI.6). The soil is usually waterlogged during the growing season, and is often covered with as much as 6 inches of water. Vegetation includes alders, willows, buttonbush, dogwoods, and swamp-privet. Shrub swamps occur mostly along sluggish streams and occasionally on flood plains. They are used to a limited extent for nesting and feeding in the North and for roosting and feeding in some of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley States. Elsewhere, shrub swamps are little used except in a few special situations. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/uswetlan/types.htm 7/12/2007 ~. 0; -= ~ --- ~ta water&SoiI Resources ...~~~ June 7, 2007 RECEiVED JUN 1 3 2007 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, :MN 55317 Gerald Von Korff Rinke Noonan P.O. Box 1497 St. Cloud, :MN 55302-1497 In Re: Order, Remand of Wetland Conservation Act Appeal Jeff and Terri Fox, City of Chanhassen, Carver County, File 07-15 Dear Ms. Haak and Mr. Von Korff: Please find enclosed an Order that remands the Wetland Conservation Act petition for appeal of Jeff and Terri Fox dated May 4,2007, to appeal the April 6, 2007 Wetland Conservation Act exemption determination, located in the NE 'l4 ofthe SW 'l4 of Section 23, T. 116N, R. 23W, City of Chanhassen, Carver County. Local administrative remedies have not been exhausted. The appeal will be held in abeyance pending completion ofthe administrative proceedings. The proceedings must be complet,ed within 60 days of the date of the Order unless the parties mutually agree to an extension of time. Under remand, the City of Chanhassen, as the local government unit administering the Wetland Conservation Act, must conduct a public hearing on the wetland exemption application. The public hearing must be presided over by a panel of at least three members. All persons should be given a full and fair opportunity to speak and submit information. The information may consist of additional or new information that was not previously considered. All documents that are submitted, or relied upon, should be identified on the record at the hearing. The panel must develop an adequate record that considers a written Technical Evaluation Panel report. The decision must include sufficient written findings of fact that support the decision and address any disagreement, if there is any, with the Technical Evaluation Panel report. The proceedings of the hearing, or hearings, where the wetland exemption application is considered should be tape recorded such that a verbatim transcript could be made available or adequate minutes must Bemirfji Brainerd Duluth Fe'3us Falls Marshall New Vim Rochester Saint P,wl 701 Minnesota Avenue 1601 Minnesota Drive 394 S, Lake Avenue 1004 Frontier Trail 1400 E. Lyon Street 261 Highway 15 S, 2300 Silver Creek 520 Lafayette Road N. Suite 234 Brainerd. MN 56401 Room 403 Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Box 267 New VIm. MN 56073 Road N.E. Saint Paul, MN 55155 Bemidji. MN 56601 phone (218) 828-2383 Duluth, MN 55802 phone (218) 736-5445 Marshall, MN 56258 phone (507) 359-6074 Rochester, MN 55906 phone (651) 296-3767 phone (218) 755-4235 fax (218) 828-6036 phone (218) 723-4752 fax (218) 736-7215 phone (507) 537-6060 fax (507) 359-6018 phone (507) 281-7797 fax (651) 297-5615 fax (218) 755-4201 fax (218) 723-4794 fax (507) 537-6368 fax (507) 285-7144 Web: www.bwsr.state.mn.us TTY: (800) 627-3529 An equal opportunity employer @Printed on recycled paper " , '" Lori Haak, Gerald Von Korff June 7, 2007 Page 2 be taken. The decision must be noticed in the same maimer as any wetland exemption determination. An appeal of the decision can be made. The current appeal is finalized upon the city's decision being made under remand and properly noticed. It is my understanding no panel, board or commission has been previously delegated the authority to decide on Wetland Conservation Act matters such as this. Thus, the City Council would conduct the public hearing and make a final decision on the wetland exemption application. Please feel free to contact me at (651) 297-2906, or at the Saint Paul address, if I may be of further assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ./ .... Cf()IVL Jim Haertel Water Management Specialist Enclosure cc: Greg Graczyk, Carver SWCD DRC Members Tom Overton, AG.O. Doug Norris, DNR-Eco Services BWSR: John Jaschke, Doug Thomas, Dave Weirens, Steve Woods, Lynda Peterson, Brad Wozney " .. ~ ~ .. Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 In the Matter of the Wetland Conservation Act appeal filed by Gerald Von Korff for Jeff and Terri Fox of an exemption determination, located in the SW ~ of Section 23, T. 116N, R. 23W, Carver County ORDER . REMANDING APPEAL Whereas, a petition dated May 4, 2007 was received on May 7, 2007, from Gerald Von Korff, Rinke Noonan, on behalf of Jeff and Terri Fox, to appeal a Wetland Conservation Act exemption determination made by the City of Chanhassen Water Resources Coordinator on April 6, 2007, located in the NE ~ of the SW ~ of Section 23, T. 116N, R. 23W, City ofChanhassen, Carver County, and; Whereas, the City of Chanhassen is the local government unit administering the Wetland Conservation Act, and; Whereas, a Wetland Conservation Act wetland exemption application was made by Jeff and Terri Fox on January 25, 2007, and; Whereas, the Wetland Conservation Act exemption determination made on April 6, 2007 by the City of Chanhassen Water Resources Coordinator was to deny the wetland exemption application, and; Whereas, the Wetland Conservation Act, Minn. Stat. SS 14.06, 103B.101, 103B.3355, 103G.2242 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420.0250, Subp. 3 require a petition for appeal not be granted when the petitioner has not exhausted all local administrative remedies and allows a petition for appeal to be remanded to the local government unit when the petitioner has not exhausted all local administrative remedies such as a local government unit public h~aring, and; Whereas, effective on May 9, 2007, after the April 6, 2007 exemption determination and after the May 4,2007 petition for appeal, the Wetland Conservation Act, Minn. Stat. S 103G.2242, Subd. 2a Cd) was revised to require appeals of decisions made by designated local government staff to be made to the local government unit, and; Whereas, the City of Chanhassen Wetland Conservation Act exemption determination made on April 6, 2007 was made by a staff individual and no public hearing was held prior to the decision on the wetland exemption application, and; Whereas, to qualify for the wetland exemption applied for, the application must contain sufficient evidence to support approval of the wetland exemption application; Now Therefore, the Board makes the following Order. ORDER The Board hereby remands to the City of Chanhassen the Wetland Conservation Act petition for appeal of Gerald Von Korff, Rinke Noonan, on behalf of Jeff and Terri Fox, to appeal a Wetland Conservation Act exemption determination made by the City of Chanhassen Water Resources Coordinator on April 6, 2007, located in the NE '14 of the SW '14 of Section 23, T. 116N, R. 23W, City ofChanhassen, Carver County, to conduct a public hearing on the wetland exemption application, to develop an adequate record that considers a written Technical Evaluation Panel Report and includes written findings of fact that support the decision and address any disagreement with the Technical Evaluation Panel Report, to tape record the hearing such that a verbatim transcript can be made or adequate minutes taken, and to notice the decision as required by the Wetland , Conservation Act; pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~ 103G.2242, Subd. 9 and Minn. Rules Chapter 8420.0250, Subp. 3. Under remand, the deciSIon must be made within 60 days of . the date of this order.unless the parties mutually agree to an extension of time. Under remand, the appeal will be held in a1;>eyance. Dated at Saint Paul, Minnesota this ~ day of June, 2007. MINNESOTA BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES By: . ~!'"' 4 ~",o--.~ John G. aschke, Exec tIve DIrector r~ IIfiCf ~- --- . Mi fa WSoiI Resources JI'lJV ~~ ~ MEMORANDUM RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2007 CITY OF CHANHASSEN May 9,2007 TO: DRC: Randy Kramer, Kay Cook, Louise Smallidge, Paul Brutlag, Quentin Fairbanks Tom Overton, A.G.O. Doug Norris, DNR-Eco Services . -~jt~~/ FR~ Haertel, Water \J.wagement Specialist PH: (651) 297-2906 In Re: WCA Appeal of an Exemption Determination City ofChanhassen, Carver County, File 07-15 Please fmd enclosed a copy of the above referenced petition in which a wetland exemption determinatIon is being appealed. The appeal regards the denial of a wetland exemption. Please contact me if you have any comments or questions. Enclosure cc: Lori Haak, City of Chanhassen Greg Graczyk, Carver SWCD Christie Eller, A.G.O. BWSR: John Jaschke, Doug Thomas, Dave Weirens, Steve Woods, Brad Wozney Bemk!ii Brainerd Duluth Fergus Falls Marshall New Vim Rochester Saint Pmt! 701 Minnesota Avenue 1601 Minnesota Drive 394 S. Lake Avenue 1004 Frontier Trail 1400 E. Lyon Street 261 Highway 15 S. 2300 Silver Creek 520 Lafayette Road N. Suite 234 Brainerd. MN 56401 Room 403 Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Box 267 New Ulm, MN 56073 Road N.E, Saint Paul, MN 55155 Bemidji, MN 56601 phone (218) 828-2383 Duluth. MN 55802 phone (218) 736-5445 Marshall. MN 56258 phone (507) 359-6074 Rochester. MN 55906 phone (651) 296-3767 phone (218) 755-4235 fax (218) 828-6036 phone (218) 723-4752 fax (218) 736-7215 phone (507) 537-6060 fax (507) 359-6018 phone (507) 281-7797 fax (651) 297.5615 fax (218) 755-4201 fax (218) 723-4794 fax (507) 537-6368 fax (507) 285-7144 Web: www.bwsr.state.mn.us TTY: (800) 627-3529 An equal opportunity employer @Printed on recycled paper STATE OF MINNESOTA BOARD OF WATER & SOIL RESOURCES The Matter of the Appeal of Jeff and Terri Fox of the Determination ofthe Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions (LGU: City ofChanhassen) APPEAL OF WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT DETERMINATION , ' ' . TO: THE STATE OF MINNESOTA THROUGH ITS BOARD OF WATER & SOIL RESOURCES, AGENCY ADMINISTERING THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACTION, MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 103G, RULES PART 8420 Jeff and Terri Fox, for their appeal bfthe determination of the City ofChanhassen, states and alleges the following: 1. Jeff and Terri Fox appeal the determination of the City of Chanhassen under the Wetland Conservation Act, as contained in the April 6, 2007, Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision and TEP Findings of Fact by Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator, City of Chanhassen. (Exhibit 1). 2. The City of Chanhassen is the Local Government Unit (LGU) implementing the Wetland Conservation Act in Carver County~ Minnesota. 3. The decision is contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence. The decision maker applied the wrong standard of proof, applying a standard that required conclusive proof. 4. Jeff and Terri Fox are owners of real property located in the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 23, Township 116N, Range 23W in Carver County, Minnesota. (PID 250230500). . PMay 4, 2007:C2007 05 02 F:\DATA\20453\OOIIPleading\Fox Appeal to BWSRwpd dvf 1 ;t .5. On or about January 25,2007, Jeff and Terri Fox submitted an application for approval to fill so as to utilize type 1 wetlands for the purpose of agricultural production utilizing standard farming practices and machinery. 6. The property for which Jeff and Terri Fox are seeking a Wetland Conservation Act exemption was at most a Type 1 Wetland entitled to an exemption declaration. At the hearing, appellant presented evidence from a competent expert, Ben Meyer, a Senior Environmental Consultant with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, that the property in question was a former Type 1 exempt wetland. The panel visited the site on March 22, 2007, at a time that the ground was frozen. A record snow (approximately 30 inches) had recently fallen and then melted in about eight days just prior to the review, causing flood waters to pond on the frozen ground. 7. The Panel erroneously failed to recognize that a storm pond in the area on neighboring property is man made and not a type 2 and 3 wetland. Further, the Panel failed to take into account that the size of the wetland on the site is, historically, significantly smaller. The area of wet ground has expanded because a drainage ditch had been driven over by farm machinery and collapsed, blocking drainage and forcing surface water to redirect itself across a larger area to re-enter the drainage ditch at a lower elevation (as such, incidental water has been included in the TEP Panel determination). 8. The decision fails to set out findings of fact which support a rmding that ,there is a type 3 wetland. The decision merely checks a box which provides insufficient explanation for administrative or judicial review, It fails to demonstrate that the panel applie~ the correct standards or law or that it took a hard look at the evidence in light of the applicable law. It is PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:\DATA\20453\001IPleading\Fox Appeal to BWSR.wpd dvf 2 impossible from the hearing decision to determine whether the panel applied the correct standards, or what evidence the panel considered, or whether the panel was reviewing evidence as of the appropriate time. 9. As more fully explained in the Dorsey appeal, a copy of which is ~ppended to this appeal (Exhibit 2), the record in this case consists of a variety of documents, maps, and other submissions to the LGU and TEP as well as approximately one hour of testimony presented to the panel and done in conjunction with the Dorsey case. It appears based upon the decision of the panel in the accompanying Dorsey case that in addition, the panel was applying the wrong burden of proof and that it believed that an exemption can only be granted upon conclusive photographic evidence. Dated: May 4, 2007 RINKE-NOONAN By Gerald W. Yon Korff, #11 32 Attorneys for Jeff and Terri Fox 1015 W. St. Germain St., Ste. 300 P.O. Box 1497 St. Cloud, MN 56302 (320) 251-6700 PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:\DATA\20453\00IIPleadinglFox Appeal to BWSRwpd dvf 3 RINKE NOONAN A T TOR N E Y S A T A W SUITE 300, US BANK PLAZA, p, O. Box 1497 1015 W. ST. GERMAIN STREET ST. CLOUD, MINNESOTA 56302-1497 TELEPHONE 320.251-6700, FAX 320.656-3500 EMAIL: MAIL@RNOON.COM WWW.RNOON.COM REceIVED MAY 0 7 2007 CITY OF CHANHASSEN May 4, 2007 Mr. Jim Haertel Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North S1. Paul, MN 55155 Re: OUI' File No. 20453.001 ~o ~~ O~ ~~ ~O ~~ 4<1>>- 0", Enclosed for filing, along with the filing fee of$200.00, is Jeff and Terri Fox's appeal of the decision of the Local Government Unit, City of Chanhassen. By this letter I am also verifying to you that on the same day we have mailed a copy of the Petition for Appeal to the LGU at the following address: Dear Mr. Haertel: City of Chanhassen A TTN: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, RINKE-NOONAN By Gerald W. Yon Korff h ~ ~ { Idvf Enclosures cc: Jeff and Terri Fox (w/encl) ~-City.ofCI1arrhassen (w/encl) J - ---- PMay:!, 2007C2007 05 02 F.\.o^Tr\\20.HJ\OOI\Lt'1I~rs\BWSR appcallillllg Fo,>; ""Vd dvf R1I'IKE. NOONAN. S'.~OLEY, DETER. COLOMBO, WIANT. VON KOPF'F" & HOBBS. LTO 0, Michael Noonan William A, Smoley' Kurt A. Deter 1 Barrett L Colombo James L Wiant Gerald W, Van Korff Sharon G, Hobbs David J. Meyers1.2:.3.6 John J. Meuers Roger C. JustinJ" John J. Babcock Jill A. Adkins Igor S. Lenzner3 Gary R. leistico"'!; John C. Kolb Scott G. Hamak Pamela A, Steckman' Stefanic L. Brown Tanya T, Hinkemeyer Ryan J. Hatton' Benjamin B. BohnsackJ 1im A. Sime7 .James A. Mogen Nicholas R. Delaney" Chad D. Miller Adam A, Ripple Brodie L. Miller Sarah E. Fisher 1. Qua/d,ed neulfal under Rule 114.2. A Rea! Proper1~' La"', Speclal'SI cendled by the tv1mrwsora Srale Sar Assoclat,on. 3_ Admllwd to pracric,," law In Vllscansm 4. Adr7llffed 10 PraCI,ce law'" Narlll Oakora 5, AdtllllU,d 10 practice IiIW,Il SOIlth Dakota 6. Sflerhurne COUTlty E)<jltntfler at Tirles. 7. Admlfled 10 pracrlce law In ArizOflD . ^ ~ ~,t " STATE OF MINNESOTA BOARD OF WATER & SOIL RESOURCES The Matter of the Appeal of Jeff and Terri Fox of the Determination of the Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions (LGU: City of Chanhassen) APPEAL OF WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT DETERMINATION TO: THE STATE OF MINNESOTA THROUGH ITS BOARD OF WATER & SOIL RESOURCES, AGENCY ADMINISTERING THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACTION, MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 103G, RULES PART 8420 Jeff and Terri Fox, for their appeal of the determination of the City of Chanhassen, states and alleges the following: 1. Jeff and Terri Fox appeal the determination of the City of Chanhassen under the Wetland Conservation Act, as contained in the April 6, 2007, Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision and TEP Findings of Fact by Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator, City of Chanhassen. (Exhibit 1). 2. The City of Chanhassen is the Local Government Unit (LGU) implementing the Wetland Conservation Act in Carver County, Minnesota. 3. The decision is contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence. The decision maker applied the wrong standard of proof, applying a standard that required conclusive proof. 4. Jeff and Terri Fox are owners ofreal property located in the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 23, Township 116N, Range 23W in Carver County, Minnesota. (PID 250230500). PMay 4, 2007:C2007 05 02 F"\DATA\20453\00IIPleadinglFox Appeal to BWSR.wpd dvf 't .,,/ 5. On or about January 25, 2007, Jeff and Terri Fox submitted an application for approval to fill so as to utilize type I wetlands for the purpose of agricultural production utilizing standard farming practices and machinery. 6. The property for which Jeff and Terri Fox are seeking a Wetland Conservation Act exemption was at most a Type 1 Wetland entitled to an exemption declaration. At the hearing, appellant presented evidence from a competent expert, Ben Meyer, a Senior Environmental Consultant with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, that the property in question was a former Type 1 exempt wetland. The panel visited the site on March 22, 2007, at a time that the ground was frozen. A record snow (approximately 30 inches) had recently fallen and then melted in about eight days just prior to the review, causing flood waters to pond on the frozen ground. 7. The Panel erroneously failed to recognize that a storm pond in the area on neighboring property is man made and not a type 2 and 3 wetland. Further, the Panel failed to take into account that the size of the wetland on the site is, historically, significantly smaller. The area of wet ground has expanded because a drainage ditch had been driven over by farm machinery and collapsed, blocking drainage and forcing surface water to redirect itself across a larger area to re-enter the drainage ditch at a lower elevation (as such, incidental water has been included in the TEP Panel determination). 8. The decision fails to set out findings of fact which support a finding that there is a type 3 wetland. The decision merely checks a box which provides insufficient explanation for administrative or judicial review. It fails to demonstrate that the panel applied the correct standards or law or that it took a hard look at the evidence in light of the applicable law. It is PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:\DATA\20453\00IIPleading\Fox Appeal to BWSRwpd dvf 2 '\ ( ~ impossible from the hearing decision to determine whether the panel applied the correct standards, or what evidence the panel considered, or whether the panel was reviewing evidence as of the appropriate time. 9. As more fully explained in the Dorsey appeal, a copy of which is appended to this appeal (Exhibit 2), the record in this case consists of a variety of documents, maps, and other submissions to the LGU and TEP as well as approximately one hour of testimony presented to the panel and done in conjunction with the Dorsey case. It appears based upon the decision of the panel in the accompanying Dorsey case that in addition, the panel was applying the wrong burden of proof and that it believed that an exemption can only be granted upon conclusive photographic evidence. Dated: May 4, 2007 RINKE-NOONAN By Gerald W. Yon Korff, #113 32 Attorneys for Jeff and Terri Fox 1015 W. St. Germain St., Ste. 300 P.O. Box 1497 St. Cloud, MN 56302 (320) 251-6700 PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:\DA T A\20453\00JIPleadinglFox Appeal to BWSR wpd dvf 3 ." . ., Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision { Name and Address of Local Government Unit: City of Chanhassen - 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 - Chanhassen.:MN 55317 Name of Applicant: Jeff and Terri Fox Project Name: Fox Wetland Exemption Application Number: n/a Type of Application (check one): lZl Exemption Decision D No Loss Decision D Replacement Plan Decision D Banking Plan Decision D Wetland Type/Boundary Decision Date of Decision: April 6, 2007 Check One: D Approved D Approved with conditions lZl Denied Summary of ProjectlDecision (indicate exemption number per MN Rule 8420.0122, if applicable): ID The applicant requested exemptions for a wetland on the property in the NE 1;4 of the SW 14 of Section 23, Township 116N, Range 23W in Carver County, Minnesota. Based on the findings of the Technical Evaluation Panel (Attachment 1), dated April 6, 2007, the City of Chanhassen denies the exemption request. List of Addressees: Landowner: Jeff and Terri Fox, 5270 Howards Point Road, Excelsior, :MN 55331 Members of Technical Evaluation Panel: Greg Graczyk, Carver SWCD Brad Wozney, BWSR Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization (If Applicable): Bob Obermeyer, RPBCWD Department of Natural Resources Regional Office (select ap ro riate office): NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Regional Director Reg. Env. Assess. Eco!' Reg. Env. Assess. Eco!' Reg, Env. Assess. Eco!' 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. NE Div. Eco!' Services Div. Eco!' Services Div, Eco!' Services Bemidji, MN 56601 1201 E. Hwy. 2 1200 Warner Road 261 Hwy. 15 South Grand Rapids, MN 55744 St. Paul, MN 55106 New Ulm, MN 56073 ,,:'~:~.':."'~),.- ,;."1....''''j';7:i,.'i;:\: EXHIBIT ,. "'.' .", "" ... ~.....'.. .:. .,:~ ''''':~. .~;:.'- ;:~. ~;.~ . ...... Page 1 of2 " DNR Representative Kate Drewry, Area Hydrologist Corp of Engineers Project Manager Joe Yanta, ACOE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District ATTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 Individual members of the public who requested a copy, summary only Ben Meyer, Bonestroo Rick Dorsey You are hereby notified that the decision of the Local Government Unit on the above- referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions is attached. Pursuant to Minn. R. 8420.0250 any' appeal of the decision must be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice. THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Additional approvals or permits from local, state, andfederal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. April 6. 2007 Date Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Name and Title Attachments: 1. Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, dated April 6, 2007 Page 2 of2 ,. T :f-Il \;:' ~.J.ii:...IoJ;':'~!'J~ 'l:~'I':W" ".'; ~"I' !. '-.d 'c . II j "'/' ii' \'~:" Act' I . '.:': .l!..:: I, . :': 0,;5 -/....:, :': ':.,: 1:':: :":':.' .I~.{~; ::/' ,..:,::':.~~ .... ;.... .. '.:~' i:. ~ ~:' ,Minnesota etan onserva on .', :':-' ..,:.'~;'.. ',.{.,'" '.'~,'!,f'~..,: -:,:"","""'~":,"'."':"""",'" 7.~'''-4.;;~'~ ';:'....-l:"'f'I,' llo.l.i-.' ..,.," ,." " . I '.' 1 ... . _',:t' ,. ',.', .:': 1'.-:. .,', .,: '\'1- '"I'~;:''' ., i:";: f". ;iT~chni~JJ~~luatiC)Jl ~f:lIJ~'-FJIlQirags Qf Fac~ ,:.::<<.';:" " '.; 'ii;,) .:::!,~~,".' :..:'; :"., ,:>:, ':.::;.',';-:1;'.; ~'; ~rtr:;--r:-.::~.;J\"u'~"'\-"~l~-;\"~''''~''.::.;'i''',''''',: _I,................, .".. . .......'. ", .', ,1..,~" ....:-\ ... ," "..... 1,1 " Dalc:.A,l1ril 6. 2007 I..Ci1.l: City of Ch;lIlhasscn C\lllllty: Carver I.GU Cllnlaet:Ltlri l'lilak. Water Resuun:cs Coordin;llm I'r,-,jo::cl Nilnll:/iI:Fo,\ Wc,tlilnd E.\ClllPIl!.lli Phonc 1:: 952.227.[ U5 LOL..llillll()fl'rojc~l: NE SW__ 11--_ II()N 2JW ~'~I ',~I I..:, Sce, 'I'\\'p, R.mgc Lol/B 1000:k Cily: Chanhasscn Coullty: em vel' TEl' :vlembcrs (and olhersl \\'11<) revic\\'ed project: (Cited if vie"c" I'm.ker ';'"1 [8l LGU:Lori !-laak [8l BWSR:l:lrad Woznev [8l SWCD: Circ!! Graczvk 0 DNR lifal'l'licablcl:_ Other Wellund Experls prescnt: N<lllc. TEl' requcsted by: I..GU Type ,If TEl' dClClminalionlcqucsted (d", k 1/11I.1, '}UlI /I}I}I'/': li Excmplion (We,\ EKcmplion ilJJ2.) Nll.Lo~s _ WClland B"undary [md Type _ Replacemenl Plan 2 l)c,sc, iplhlll "r WClla/lllCsJ lI.ilh pn\pClsed impacl: :1 \Velland Iypc (Circular )l))~fpc.l Wilh TI'pc '2 Irin!!c (CllWlIIllilll_ b Weiland Sif.c :\,' acres 1:, Sizc o[ Proposed ImpacI (acrcs and sqwlle feet) 1..1llcrcs (5(;,62S sl) ~ !-la\'c sequcnl'illg reLluilelTlCIllS becn Illct'? Alt",-:h Sequcncing Finding III I~ael as supporting infoflnalion DYes D No (ir no, lisl why) nla ..\ Is the pi'lljC\:1 L'llnsislcnl II ilh lhe inlenl III the wmprcbensiv<: loe.1I watc. plan and/or Ihe w.\tershed dislrkt plan. Ih<: me1rClplllilan surl:.ce \\alcr lllanagcl1lclll plan allllmctrllplllilan glllundwtllCr mtlllagellll:nl plan. and IIll.:al (;omprchcnsivl: plan and wning ordinance'! DYcs D No (jlno lislll'hyl n/a 5 I'lll\\' \\illlhe prlljl.:cl nlTeL'( Illl~ 1()lIoll'ing wet!;uu!l'uncti<.1I1s: hll1ctions Inl\Jacl Flollllwiller Slmagc Nutrienl t\s~imih\liol) Sedimcnl Ellllilpmenl Groundwaler RCl:hargc L.ow Flow Augmentation Acsthcl iCs/Rccrl:a lion Shorcland J\nchoring Wildlil'c Habilal l:isberies Habilal Rare Plill1t1 Animlll HlIbilat COlllmcrcial Uses n/a No Imparl (mnnwe 6 F'IIICplilccl1lenl pi all or no.loss delcnninalions, ale weiland runclillns maintained at an equal or greater l~vel! DYes D No (if nu Iislwhy) n/a 7 Dlll:S I'cchnical Evalualionl'anel reco1l11111.:nd approvill 01 Ihe activit)' pruposed in ilelll I ! DYes 0 Yes, wilh Condilions [g] No (i( nn. Iisl why) I I' Illl, why? Basin is not "a lypc 2 III type 6 weiland thai is less llliln I\\'O acres in size and localed Oil agril:ulluralland " ~ Lisl lEI' findings I,' suppon Iccnollncnd:\liUIl in qucslinl) 7 "hove (see :illachcu) 9 L(. (z,0'7- (Dal"] (Oale) P:1!!l' I nf I Fux TEl' Filld)llg~ of p;u:lllui: ('\l'ril 20(3) ,0(" STATE OF MINNESOTA BOARD OF WATER & SOIL RESOURCES The Matter of the Appeal of Dorsey & Dorsey c/o Rick Dorsey of the Determination ofthe Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions (LGU: City of Chanhassen) APPEAL OF WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT DETERMINATION TO: THE STATE OF MINNESOTA THROUGH ITS BOARD OF WATER & SOIL RESOURCES, AGENCY ADMINISTERING THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACTION, MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 103G, RULES PART 8420 Rick Dorsey, for his appeal of the determination of the City of Chanhassen, states and alleges the following: 1. Rick Dorsey appeals the determination of the City of Chanhassen under the Wetland Conservation Act, as contained in the April 6, 2007, letter and Notice ofWetIand Conservation Act Decision and TEP Findings of Fact by Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator, City of Chanhassen. (Exhibit 1). 2. The City of Chanhassen is the Local Government Unit (LGU) implementing the Wetland Conservation Act in Carver County, Mhmesota. 3. Dorsey's exemption request was heard concurrently with an exemption request by adjoining landowner Fox. The two cases have issues in common. 4. The decision is contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and unsuppOlied by substantial evidence. The decision maker applied the wrong standard of proof, applying a standard that required conclusive proof. Ph'lay 4, 2007:C2004 J 0 08 F:\DAT A\20453\OOI\Pleading\Dorsey FINAL Appeal 10 BWSRwpdjck EXHIBIT"~'~"'''''i'' 5. Rick Dorsey is a Oeneral Partner of Dorsey and Dorsey who is the owner of real property located in the NW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Section 23, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Mimlesota. Street Address: 1551 Lyman Blvd (PID 250230400). 6. On or about February 5, 2007, Rick Dorsey submitted an application for approval of a wetland project. Dorsey applied for an exemption determination for four areas designated as Sites 1-4 respectively. The purpose of the exemption request was to obtain declaratory determination establishing that the sites were exempt in 1991 and that they remain exempt. The evidence was presented at a meeting, lasting approximately one hour. The evidence showed that the sites were already exempt, were former wetlands, all of which have been drained, excavated and/or filled as of passage ofWCA. 7. The decision regarding the two areas designated as Site 2 and Site 4 are impacted by the same legal enor. The evidence established that prior to 1987, site 2 and 4 met the criteria for WCA exemption 1A. Specifically, the land was used for row crops.' Minn. Stat. ~ 1030.2241 subdivision (lA) part 1. Further based on available evidence it was determined that during the time period of 1981-1986 the subject areas showed no sign of a wetland or were of I With respect to site #2, the drainage (drain tile) and fill activity occurred prior to 1991. The evidence shows it was annually seeded with crops for the required number of years between "the time period 1981-1991." The LOU agrees to the exemption. The exemption occurred at the time of enactment of the WCA and not at the time of the formal application. MN Rule 8420.0210 paragraph 2, "An exemption may apply whether or not the local government unit has made an exemption determination." As such an exemption for the work already done in the wetland was effectively grandfathered in with the WCA when it became effective in 1992. Because it was exempt under Subp. lA, for work already done a certificate of exemption was not needed or requested. Again, in that a certificate was not requested does not mean an exemption did not apply. PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:IDATA\20453\0011PIeadinglDorsey FINAL Appeal to BIVSR.wpd dvf 2 " " type 1 or 2 and iftype 2 were less than 2 acres. Having found that the sites were exempt at that time, however, the LGU incorrectly imposed a ten year deed restriction dating from the time of the exemption determination, rather than from the date of the date of the existence of the exemption itself. The decision wrongly assumes that the purpose of an exemption determination is to authorize a particular activity as of the date of the exemption request. From this error, the exemption decision determines that the panel should place an agricultural restriction effective after the date ofthe exemption determination. As a result of this error, the decision wrongly concludes that the applicant must restrict his usage of the property for at least ten years after the date of the decision. Exemptions are self-executing, and the date of the exemption determination is irrelevant for purposes of applying the exemption. 8. With respect to Site # 3, the evidence showed that a wetland of some kind may have existed on this site prior to 1981. During that time, the area was fenced and used as pasture for dairy cows. The County then in 1981, widened Lyman Boulevard and lawfully used this area for clean fill arising from the road construction. The road project created a new clean swale along the 20 foot high road embankment. In 1981 - 1982 the site was reseeded and used as pasture. In 1983, after the balance oflowland was filled with soil hauled in from another City project, the south portion of the former wetland was planted in soybeans and the north half reseeded in pasture grass (hay) which was mechanically harvested and sold through 1988. Thus, at the time WCA was passed, there was no wetland and the land would have been exempt as ofthe date that WCA became effective. The TEP Panel wrongly focused on an artificial wet area which developed along the road ditch. The decision that Site #3 is not exempt is arbitrary PMay 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:IDATA\20453\00IiPleadinglDarsey FINAL Appealta BII'SKwpd dvf 3 . , and capricious, unlawful, and contrary to the evidence. Further, as discussed below, the TEP Panel and LOU applied the wrong standard in evaluating the evidence. 9. With respect to Site 1, the TEP Panel used an on-site visit March 22, 2007, to determine the size and type of wetland area to be impacted as the basis for its decision to deny the exemption request. This review was irrelevant as it did not review the status of size and type prior to 1991. 10. In the relevant time period for exemption determination, there was no wetland on site 1. Within the application, as well as at the predetermination meeting with the TEP Panel, Dorsey and Ben Meyer, a Senior Enviromnental Consultant with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates representing Dorsey, provided detailed information regarding the issue of wetland size between 1981 and 1989. They showed that the former wetland had been drained and tiled for over thi1ty years by the time the WCA was enacted. In an aerial photo from 1963, supplied to the TEP Panel in the application, one can see the "Y shape" shadow line on the land including the site area. 1 1. Minn. Stat.s1030.2241, subd. 1 (a)(1), and Minn. Rules Part 8420.0122, subp. l(a) state that a replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in a wetland that were amlUally seeded with crops or were in crop rotation seeding of pasture grass or legumes in 6 of the most recent 10 years prior to January I, 1991. Because these lands met that requirement as of January 1, 1991, the panel wrongly looked at the condition of the land as of a later date. 12. The site was excavated and wetland soil types were removed, in 1989, with approval from the City of Chanhassen, for reasons described in detain in the application. The excavation was done to make a man made surface water management pond. The plan approved PMav 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:\DATA\20453\00IIPJeading\Darsey FINAL Appealla BWSR"l'd d\f 4 . . by the City, and of public record, included a survey and topographical map (the application included a copy of said documents) which surveyed the fonner wetland area in site # 1. At that time the high-water ponding area from the incidental pond starting to form as a result of a blocked ditch discussed in the application. Scaling it out, the size is less than 0.7 acres in total. Under exemption lA, the determination is based on pre-existing land use to the WCA enactment, not current time use. For this reason, the size and type of wetland are to be based on what was there pre 1991, using historical data.. " The Owner provided the TEP Panel with a survey and topographical map submitted to the City of Chanhassen in 1989 and accepted in the public record as part of an excavation permit for the site. It shows the size of the historic wetland on site # 1 had been between 0.6 and 0.7 acres. The hydric soils, in the approximately 0.7 acre site which were already drain tiled but blocked, were excavated in 1989 with the hydric soils removed from the site, and the depression left as a man made surface water management pond, for reasons described in detail in the application. A storm water management pond was created after the wetland soil types were removed from the site. 13. Site #1 has been drain tiled and farmed for more than 23 years prior to 1986. As a former wetland through and including 1986 it would not be type-able because it was not a wetland. In 1987-1988 when water started to puddle into the growing season, it was incidental to ditch blockage on neighboring property. Any wet ground on the site today is not a natural wetland: it is a man made storm pond that is now overflowing without an emergency overflow. (The increase in the storm pond size since 1989 is due to surface water drainage blocked on neighboring property and seepage of the storm pond saturating a buffer area). Neither of which was intended to create wetlands when the pond was created. PM.)' 4. 2007:C2007 04 23 F:\DAT A\20453\00 I IPleadinglDorsey FINAL Appeal to BWSR. "l'd dvf 5 , . " . 14. Even ifthere had been a wetland at the relevant time period, it still would have been in error to deny the exemption, because the land was devoted to exempt agricultural uses. Evidently the panel misconstrued the meaning of the terms crop, pasture grass, and legumes, and misconstrued the meaning of the subdivision 1 (a)(l) exemption. 15. "Hayland" is defined as an area that was mechanically harvested or that was planted with annually seeded crops in a crop rotation seeding of grasses or legumes in six of the last ten years. Minn. Stat.sl03G.005, subd. 10(c); Minn. Rules Part 8420.0110, subp. 20. 16. "Agricultural land" is defined as land used for horticultural, row, close grown, pasture and hayland crops. Milm. Stat.sl03G.005, subd. 2(a); Minn. Rules Part 8420.0110, subp. 4. 17. The statute, rules and SONAR support a plain reading of the exemption requested by Dorsey. 18. A crop is any plant that is grown in significant quantities to be harvested as food, livestock fodder, or for anotller economic purpose. Pasture is land with herbaceous vegetation cover used for grazing of livestock as part of a farm or ranch. The key difference between pasture and crop is that a crop is harvested for use away from the specific location that it is grown, whereas with pasture, an animal grazes and consumes the plant as it is growing. A legume is a plant in the family Fabaceae (or Leguminosae), or a fruit of these plants. Well-known legumes include alfalfa, clover, peas, beans, lentils, lupins and peanuts. 19. The record in this case consists of a variety of documents, maps, and other submissions to the LGU and TEP as well as approximately one hour of testimony presented to the panel. It appears based upon the decision of the panel that this testimony was not considered PM.)' 4, 2007:C2007 04 23 F:\DATA\2045J\00JIPJe.dinglDorsey FJNAL Appeal 10 BWSRwpd d.{ 6 ~ 1# , "'fl, /" as a result of the panel's erroneous belief that an exemption can only be granted upon conclusive photographic evidence. Wherefore, appellant requests that the decision of the panel requiring a ten year deed restriction from date of decision be reversed, and that the decision of the panel denying exemptions to two parcels be reversed. Dated: May L, 2007 RINKE-NOONAN k By ~~ ~ r!fu7 Gerald W. Yon Korff, #113232 Attorneys for Rick Dorsey 1015 W. 81. Germain 81., 8te. 300 P.O. Box 1497 81. Cloud, MN 56302 (320) 251-6700 PMa)' 4. 2007:C2007 04 23 F:IDA T A \20453100 I IPleadinglDorse)' FINAL Appeal 10 BWSR.wpd dvf 7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952,227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952,227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227,1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952,227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952,227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site VNrW.ci.chanhassen.mn .us April 6, 2007 Jeff and Terri Fox 5270 Howards Point Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Wetland Exemption Application Dear Jeff and Terri: Enclosed please find the City's decision, as LGU for the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, regarding your recent wetland exemption application. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227-1135 or lhaak@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANI-IASSEN 'p" d (\) o - (/) - D Z. ':'\' ~~~ Lon Haak . ".' ...,. Water Resources Coordinator "'/ .,.;>.'! :r '~f; :,'f' "', ;~ "i ," ~i Enclosures ; ,::.,:, cc: Ben Meyer, Bonestroo Greg Graczyk, Carv~r,.SW:CD Brad Woiney, BWSR ;'~ .;' ',c g:\eng\lori\wetlands\exemptions\fox cover letter.d~ /- ;if The City 01 Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. , Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision Name and Address of Local Government Unit: City of Chanhassen - 7700 Market Boulevard -P.O. Box 147 - Chanhassen,:MN 55317 Name of Applicant: Jeff and Terri Fox Project Name: Fox Wetland Exemption Application Number: n/a Type of Application (check one): [g] Exemption Decision D No Loss Decision D Replacement Plan Decision D Banking Plan Decision o Wetland Type/Boundary Decision Date of Decision: April 6, 2007 Check One: D Approved o Approved with conditions [g] Denied Summary of Project/Decision (indicate exemption number per MN Rule 8420.0122, if applicable):ID The applicant requested exemptions for a wetland on the property in the NE 1;4 of the SW 1;4 of Section 23, Township 116N, Range 23W in Carver County, Minnesota. Based on the fmdings of the Technical Evaluation Panel (Attachment 1), dated April 6, 2007, the City of Chanhassen denies the exemption request. List of Addressees: Landowner: Jeff and Terri Fox, 5270 Howards Point Road, Excelsior, :MN 55331 Members of Technical Evaluation Panel: Greg Graczyk, Carver SWCD Brad W ozney, BWSR Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization (If Applicable): Bob Obermeyer, RPBCWD Department of Natural Resources Regional Office (select a ro riate office): NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Regional Director Reg, Env. Assess. EcoI. Reg. Env. Assess. EcoI. Reg. Env. Assess. EcoI. 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. NE Div. Ecol. Services Div. EcoI. Services Div. EcoI. Services Bemidji, MN 56601 1201 E. Hwy. 2 1200 Warner Road 261 Hwy. 15 South Grand Rapids, MN 55744 St. Paul, MN 55106 New Ulm, MN 56073 Page 1 of2 ; DNR Representative Kate Drewry, Area Hydrologist Corp of Engineers Project Manager Joe Yanta, ACOE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District ATTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul,:MN 55101-1638 Individual members of the public who requested a copy, summary only Ben Meyer, Bonestroo Rick Dorsey You are hereby notified that the decision of the Local Government Unit on the above- referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions is attached. Pursuant to Minn. R. 8420.0250 any' appeal of the decision must be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice. THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Additional approvals or pennitsfrom local, state, andfederal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. April 6, 2007 Date Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Name and Title Attachments: 1. Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, dated April 6, 2007 Page 2 of2 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact Date:ApriI6,2007 LGU: City ofChanhassen County: Carver LGU Contact:Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Project Name/#:Fox Wetland Exemption Phone #: 952.227.1135 Location of Project: ~ SW 23 116N ~ ~ ~ Sec. Twp. City: Chanhassen County: Carver TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) .[g] LGU:Lori Haak [g] BWSR:Brad Woznev [g] SWCD: Greg Graczyk D DNR (ifapplicable):~ Other Wetland Experts present: None. TEP requested by: LGU 23W Range Lot/Block 1. Type of TEP determination requested (check those that apply): .! Exemption (WCA Exemption # ID) No-Loss _ Wetland Boundary and Type _ Replacement Plan 2. Description ofWetland(s) with proposed impact: a. Wetland Type (Circular 39) Type 3 with Tvpe 2 fringe (Cowardin)_ b. Wetland Size 3.3 acres c. Size of Proposed Impact (acres and square feet) 1.3 acres (56,628 sf) 3. Have sequencing requirements been met? Attach Sequencing Finding of Fact as supporting information. DYes D No (if no, list why) nla 4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? DYes 0 No (if no, list why) nla 5. How will the project affect the following wetland functions: nla Functions Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation Aesthetics/Recreation Shoreland Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Rare Plant/ Animal Habitat Commercial Uses Impact No Impact Improve 6. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? DYes 0 No (if no, list why) nla 7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1 ? DYes 0 Yes, with Conditions [g] No (if no, list why) If no, why? Basin is not "a type 2 or type 6 wetland that is less than two acres in size and located on agricultural land." 8. List TEP findings to support recommendation in question 7 above. (see attached) 9. SIGNATURES (ifTEP recommendation is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page) Page 14 ill O~W' feP ~ 0\ ~Mtvre~ Di +0 \J tb I/ou;: 0fJlA " ~~ LGU Representa 've (Date) Lf. ~07 (Date) )ate) late) Fox TEP Findings of Fact.doc Fox Wetland Exemption TEP Findings of Fact April 6, 2007 Attachment 8. List TEP findings to support recommendation in question 7 above. · TEP members from the LGU and the Carver SWCD conducted an on-site review on March 22, 2007. · The wetland is a Type 3 wetland with a Type 2 fringe that is more than 2 acres in size. The entire wetland basin is approximately 3.3 acres in size. " ,4 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Certificate of Mailing of Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision Name and address of local government unit:City of Chanhassen - 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 - Chanhassen,:MN 55317 The undersigned certifies on April 6, 2007 , Lori Haak he/she mailed copies of the attached Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision to the addressees listed thereon by depositing the same in the United States Mail in the City of Chanhassen , County of Carver and State of Minnesota, properly enveloped with prepaid first class postage. C?ftv~ SIgnature April 6, 2007 Date Water Resources Coordinator Title Page 1 of 1 Fox Cert Mail Notice Decision.doc (April 2003) Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision Name and Address of Local Government Unit: City of Chanhassen - 7700 Market Boulevard -P.O. Box 147 - Chanhassen,:MN 55317 Name of Applicant: Jeff and Terri Fox Project Name: Fox Wetland Exemption Application Number: nfa Type of Application (check one): .[8] Exemption Decision o No Loss Decision o Replacement Plan Decision D Banking Plan Decision D Wetland Type/Boundary Decision Date of Decision: April 6, 2007 Check One: D Approved o Approved with conditions [8] Denied Summary of ProjectJDecision (indicate exemption number per MN Rule 8420.0122, if applicable): ID The applicant requested exemptions for a wetland on the property in the NE % of the SW % of Section 23, Township 116N, Range 23W in Carver County, Minnesota. Based on the findings of the Technical Evaluation Panel (Attachment 1), dated April 6, 2007, the City of Chanhassen denies the exemption request. List of Addressees: Landowner: Jeff and Terri Fox, 5270 Howards Point Road, Excelsior,:MN 55331 Members of Technical Evaluation Panel: Greg Graczyk, Carver SWCD Brad Wozney, BWSR Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization (If Applicable): Bob Obermeyer, RPBCWD Department of Natural Resources Regional Office (select a ro riate office): NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Regional Director Reg. Eny. Assess. EcoL Reg. Eny. Assess. EcoL Reg. Eny. Assess. Ecol. 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. NE Diy. EcoL Services Diy. Ecol. Services Diy. EcoL Services Bemidji, MN 56601 1201 E. Hwy. 2 1200 Warner Road 261 Hwy. 15 South Grand Rapids, MN 55744 St. Paul, MN 55106 New DIm, MN 56073 Page 1 of2 DNR Representative Kate Drewry, Area Hydrologist Corp of Engineers Project Manager Joe Yanta, ACOE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District A TIN: CO- R, 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul,:MN 55101-1638 Individual members of the public who requested a copy, summary only Ben Meyer, Bonestroo Rick Dorsey You are hereby notified that the decision of the Local Government Unit on the above- referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions is attached. Pursuant to Minn. R. 8420.0250 anyappeal ofthe decision must be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice. THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Additional approvals or permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. 4tfp-=- Sl ature April 6, 2007 Date Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Name and Title Attachments: 1. Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, dated April 6, 2007 Page 2 of2 t'>'.,. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact Date:April 6. 2007 LOU: City of Chanhassen County: Carver LGU Contact:Lori Haak. Water Resources Coordinator Project Namel#:Fox Wetland Exemption Phone #: 952.227.1135 Location of Project: NE SW 23 116N If.J If.J If.J Sec. Twp. City: Chanhassen County: Carver TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) .[8] LGU:Lori Haak[8] BWSR:Brad Woznev [8] SWCD: Greg Graczyk D DNR (ifapplicable):_ Other Wetland Experts present: None. TEPrequested by: LOU 23W Range Lot/Block 1. Type ofTEP determination requested (check those that apply): ~ Exemption (WCA Exemption # 10) No-Loss _ Wetland Boundary and Type _ Replacement Plan 2. Description ofWetland(s) with proposed impact: a. Wetland Type (Circular 39) Tvoe 3 with Tvpe 2 fringe (Cowardin)_ b. Wetland Size 3.3 acres c. Size of Proposed Impact (acres and square feet) 1.3 acres (56.628 sf) 3. Have sequencing requirements been met? Attach Sequencing Finding of Fact as supporting information. DYes D No (if no, list why) nla 4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Dyes D No (if no, list why) nla 5. How will the project affect the following wetland functions: nla Functions Impact No Impact Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation AestheticslRecreation Shoreland Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Rare Plant! Animal Habitat Commercial Uses Improve 6. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? DYes D No (if no, list why) nla 7, Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item I? DYes D Yes, with Conditions [8] No (if no, list why) If no, why? Basin is not Ita type 2 or type 6 wetland that is less than two acres in size and located on agricultural land. It 8. List TEP findings to support recommendation in question 7 above. (see attached) 9. SIGNATURES (ifTEP recommendation is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page) Fox TEP Findings of Fact.doc Page q i i B100te-r feP ~ 0\ C\Mtvre~ Dl +0 \J -G1/oUJ: 0t/lA" swen R<pre~ ~. epresentJi ve (Date) . q. t?-.07 (Date) )ate) late) Fox Wetland Exemption TEP Findings of Fact April 6, 2007 Attachment 8. List TEP findings to support recommendation in question 7 above. . TEP members from the LGU and the Carver SWCD conducted an on-site review on March 22, 2007. . The wetland is a Type 3 wetland with a Type 2 fringe that is more than 2 acres in size. The entire wetland basin is approximately 3.3 acres in size. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227,1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227,1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952,227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site WWN.ci.chanhassen.mn.us April 5, 2007 Jeff and Terri Fox 5270 Howards Point Road Excelsior, :MN 55331 Re: Wetland Exemption Application Dear Jeff and Terri: This letter is to notify you that the City will be unable to complete the review of your exemption request within the 60-day review period that ends April 21, 2007. Therefore, I am notifying you that the City is extending its review period for up to an additiona160 days, through June 20, 2007. If you have any questions or need additional (952) 227-1135 or Ihaak@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. please contact me at Sincerely, CITY OF ~. Lori Haak Water The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. . ~. Bonestroo f:I Rosene "I\lI Anderlik & 1 ~ 1 Associates Engineers & Architects 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113 Office: 651-636-4600 . Fax: 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.com February 20, 2007 Ci~ofChanhassen Attn: Lori Haak 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Fox WCA Ag. Exemption Application Ms. Haak, Enclosed is the WCA Agricultural Exemption per requirements of City Code. We feel the project meets the requirements of MN Rule 8420.0122 Subp. 1. D. We have attached a figure with a wetland determination to illustrate the area of exemption. Please feel free to contact me at 651-604-4767 or bmeyer@bonestroo.com if you have any questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Assoc. ~~~ Benjamin L. Meyer Certified Wetland Delineator Sr. Wetland Scientist C: Jeff Fox, 5270 Howards Pt Rd, Excelsior, MN 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 2 0 2007 CHANHASSEN PlANNING DEPT . St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, MN . Milwaukee, WI · Chicago, IL Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned 'J::::::> ~ ("J ! j D L __J NA'()26620-()}B Minnesota Local/State/Federal A (V,2.02 lor YlS \VORD) 09/01104 lication Form for WaterlWetland Pro'ects A lication No. Field Office Code For Internal Use Only Date Initial plication Received Date initial A PART I: BASIC APPLICATION "See HELP" direc:ts you to important additional information and assistance in Instructions, PaKe 1. I. LANDOWNER/APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION (See Help f) Name: Jeff and Terri Fax Phone: 952474.7118 Completemailingaddress:5270HowardsPlRd.Excelsior.MN 55331 IA. AUTHORIZED AGENT (See Help fA) (Only if applicable; all agent is not required) Name: Ben MeY13r, Bonestrao & Assoc. Phone: 651-6044767 Complete mailing address: 2335W, Hwy36,Sl. Paul,MN 55113 2. ;'\lAME, TYPE AND SIZE OF PUBLIC WATERS or WETLANDS IMPACfED (Attach Addilional ProjecT Area sheets ifnecdcd) Name or 1.0, # of Waters Impacted (if applicable; if known): (Check all that apply): OLake DRiver I2]Wctland typc 12] 1 D J L 02 0 3 04 D 5 D 6 0 7 D 8 Indicate siLe of entire lake or wetland (check one): ~ Less than 10 acres (indicate size: 3.40) 0 10 to 40 acres 0 Greatcr than 40 acres 3. PROJE<.-. LOCATION ([nformation can befol/nd on properly lax slatemenl. property title or title insumnce): Project street addr.ess: PID 250230500 Fire #: City (if applicable): Chanhassen 'I., Section: SW Section: 23 Township #: 116 Range #: 23 County: Carver Lot #: Block: Subdivision: Watershed (name 01';'/) 33 Attach a simple site locator map. If needed, include on the map written directions to the site from a known location or landmark, and provide distances Torn known locations. Label the sheet ,I,'/TE I.()(,A TOR IV/A p, (A 11 ACHED) 4. TYPE OF PROJECf: Describe the type of proposed work. Attach TYPE OF PROJECT shcet if needed. Mn Rule 8420.0115 and 8420.0122 Subpart 1. D. Agricultural Exemption 5. PROJECT PfjRPOSE, DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS: Describe what you p:an to do and why it is needed, how you plan to construct the project with dimensions (length, width, depth), area of impact, and when you propose to construct the project. This is the most important part of your application. See HELP 5 before completing this section; see What To Include on Plans (fnstructions. page I). Attach PROJECT DE<;CRlf'TION sheet. Utilizing Type 1 wetlands for the purpose of agricultural production utilizing standarj farming practices and machinery. Footprint of project: 1.3 acres or square feet drained, filled or excavated. 6, PROJECT AL TERNA TIVES: What alternatives to this proposed project have you considered that would avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands or wat.~rs? List at least TWO additional alternatives 10 your project in Section 5 that avoid wetlands (one of which may be "no build" or "do nothing"), and explain why you chose to pursue the option described in this application over these alternatives, Attach PROJECT ALTERNATIVES sheet if needed. NlA 7. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: for projects that impact more than 10,000 square feet of water or \\icl1ands, lisllhe compJelc mailing addresses ,)f adjacent property owners 011 an attached separate shcet. (See HELP 7) 8. PORTION OF WORK COMPLETED: Is any portion of the work in wetland or water areas already completed? 0 Yes ~No, If yes, describe thc complcted work on a separate sheet of paper labeled WORK ALREADY COMPLETED. (See HELP 8) 9. STATUS OF OTHER APPROVALS: List any other permits, reviews or approvals related to this proposed project that arc either pending or have already been approved or denied on a separate attached sheet. See HELP 9. 10, I am applying for state and local authorization to conduct the work described in this application, I am familiar with the information contained in this application. To the best of my knowledge and belief, all infoTlnation in Part I is true, complete, and accllmtc. I possess the authority to undertake the work described, or ( am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant /: ~,~ "7 Date C$.:d?;p:-2--""- . 12/5/06 Sigflll/ure of agenl (if applicable) Dale This block must be si~ned by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity and has the nec~ssary propel1y rig!,ts to dn ,n. If' nnly the Agent ha" signetL please attach a separate sbeet signed by the landowner. giving necessary authorization to the Agent. Ylinnesota Local/State!FedtTal Application Forms fur Water/Wetland Projects Page I APPLlCA TIO!,; FOR DEPARTMENT OJ.' THE ARMY PERMIT (33 CFR32S) OMS AFFROV AL NO. 0710.003 Expires Dee 31, 2004 The public burden for Ihis colleclion of infonnation is eSlimated 10 average JO bonrs per response. allhough the majority of applicalions should require 5 honrs or less. This includes the dme for revi~wing instructions, searcbing existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completmg and reviewing the collection ofinfomlation, Sc:nd comments regarding (hi; burden eslimate or ~.ny uther aspect ufthi~ \"ullet.1.ion ufinfonnatioll. inc1uding:iUggt:s(i()lI~ fbr~ducing this burden.lU Department of De fen st'. WashillJ.,'1011 Headquarters Ser....ice Directorate Qflnfon11ation Operations and RcpOlts. 1215 J~fferson Dads Highway, Suite 1204. Adington, V A 12201-4302: and.o ll,e OOicc ofManagct'ucnt and Budget. Paper\\'"ork Reductiml Project {0710-O003~. \Vashington. DC 20503, Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other PW\ isiull of 1.1\"'. no JX'r~on shall he subject to any pen.alty thr failing (0 c01l1ply with a collection ofinfonlla(ion ifil does nOt display a c'llTrcntty valid OI\'IB control OUlllber. Please DO ~o'r RI::n:I{:,\ ~'our form to either of these .addresse~., Completed applications must be :oiuhmiucd to the District engineer ha\'fngjllrisdicrioll o\'~r :he loca.ion ofrht> proposed ilC1iviIY. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT: Authoritie" Ri'.m and Harbors Act. Section 10.33 lISe403: Clean Water Ael. Section 404. 33 use 1.144: Marinc Protection, Rcs<areh and Sanctuaries ACI, 33 L;SC 1413, Seclion 103. Principal purpose: Inlbm"tion pronded on this rorm will be used in evaluating the application for a pcmlit. Routine uses: This infOlnlation may be sha-ed with the Depanl1len( of Justice and other Federal. Slate. and local go",-ernnlenl agencies. S .Ibmission ofrequested infonllation is voluntal)'i howev~r. if infonnatlon is not provijcd the penmt 8'Plllication cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued, ITEMS 1 THROUGH 4 TO BE FILLED IN BY THE CORPS I. API'L1CATIO~ 1\0. 2. FIELD OITICT CODE ], DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPI.IC^T10~ COMPLETED YOU DO NOT NEED TO COMPLETE ITEMS 6-10 and 12-25 in the SHADED AREAS. All applicants must complete non-shaded items 5 and 26, If an agent is used, also complete items 8 and 11. This optional FedemJ form is valid for use only when included as part of this entire state application packet. 5, APPLlc^"rs ~AME Jeff and Terri Fox 8. AIITfJORIZED AGEl\T'S NA I.1E AND TITLE (an agent is not required) Ben Meyer, Wetland Scientist ! 6, APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 17,NI>I;Jtt\NT'~ Pj-l~f;NO. 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS . ,WiAQENJ:$I'!iP~~N9 11. STATEMENT OF Al.'THORIZATION (if applicable: camplc,,! only if authorizing an agent) , hereby authorize Ben Meyer, Bonestroo & Assoc. 10 act on my behalfas my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon requcst. supplemental information In support of Ihis permit applieution. ,12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE fsee instluctions) DATE 1~)5'tl 7 APPUCANT"S S:G:'-iATL'RE: i$loCA.f"bN OF.P~6.jtct: 'J.6.0TfiERL~~;hONDES9~iriiON~;~~kNqwN:(se#'1~c(iB#):':. . ' 17. DiRECTIONS TO THE sfrt . . .. .. . . . ',' .., . " . <lit: NAtl)]~EOFACTIvrtY; 19, PROJECT PURPOSE 20. REASON(S) FOR DISCHARGE .21. TYPES OF MATERIAl._ BEING DISCHARGED AND THE AMOUNt OF EACH TYPE IN CUBIC YARDS . 22 St!RF~CEI\RE~ iN ACRES9~'WETSANDS~~ Oiff:ER'~A~~~!f.I~1j;E~. . ' ~3ISAl-lr ~~~IOl'l o~r~1lwo~.~A.i:h;':&t,d~~t:iE1i ~~: ,7 ... ,:/~~6./: l~~~Jbg~tIiIB~'~~I;L~rE.R:~~k~.":> ' ~4'ADokESSESOFADJblN1NGiR6PER:iy O\VNERS,' 25, LlST OF OTHER CERTIfICATIONS OR APPROVALSlDENIALS RECEIVED FROM OTHER FEDERAl., STATE OR LOCAL AGENCIES FOR WORK DESCRIBF.O IN THIS APPLICATION. 26, Application is hereby made for a permit or pemlils to authorize the work described in this application, I ccrtify that the information in this application is complete and accul"ate. I further certify that J possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. ~~.:,?7.0t"-2-'-'--' . (.. ~(:. tJ 7 12/5106 Date Signalure oragent (if any) Dale rhe application muSI be signcd by dte person who desircs 10 undertake the proposcd activity (applicanl), Of it may be signed by a duly aUlhorized agel1l if thc statement in Block II has been filled out and signed. 18lJ-S-C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner wilhinthe jUl'i!;dictic)l1 of any depal1ment Or agency orthe United States knowingly and willfully fMsifies, conceals. or covers up with aoy trick, scheme, 01' disguises a material fact 01' makes any fulse. ticlilious or fraudulent statemcnts Of representations or makes or lLses any false writirg or document knowing same to contain any false. fictitious or tTaudulcnt s1atements or enlry. shall be fined not more than S J 0,000 Or imprisoned lIot more than tive years Or both, ENG FORM 434S. lul97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent: CECW.OR) Minnesota Lot"Jl!Statc!Fcdcral Application Fonns lor Water/Wetland Projects Page 2 FOR LGU lJSE ONLY: Determination for l'art I: D No WCA Jurisdiction o Exempt: No" .n (per Ml'\ Rule 8420.0122) D No Loss: _ (i\.Boo . .G. per Mi'\ Rule 8420Jl220) o Rcplacemenl reqillr.d - applicant must complete ]'art II COMPLETE THE SECTION BELOW O:-lL Y IF REPLACEMENT IS NOT REOUIRED: Application is (check one): D Approved DApproved with conditions (cllnditions attached) D Denied ('llmmcntsiFindings: /.GU ()flic;a/~ignal!!re Dahl Name "nd Title For Agricultural and Drainage exemptions (M~ Rule 8420.0122 Subps. I and 2B), LGL' bas received proof Qf recording of restrictions (per MN Rule 8420.01 15): COW,~\: wht!re recorded Dale DOCllmelll Ii assigned by recorde,' LGU official signature Dare Minnesota LocaVStateiFedcral Application Forms lOr Water/Wetland Projects Page 3 . . . :. l.. -c -"""'-~'-- - f fOX Property PIO 250230500 ~ ..,J !Xl CI) f5 s: o Q. t .\ \ .,'" ,., "c, \~, ,'1P, '" +. >"(~-....- U1," ' . ":.~,~, '~'" ~.~ -. ,. ;, ",.> 'It __ ~ ,.. -t., -=~ &"" , ?h ..... '- - "'3...~,..,~ ,- --- -~, -W""'t: '( '." "" -r . ..."").. . " '8_ -".fit' __ ~ ..#- -< -J .....;. \, ,. '-''#1~<lW->' .....~ .... ." " --->- ..~. ~'.!'f .. Eox @roperties tP-...~ .~:, .' SITE LOCATOR MAP FOX PROPERTY - WETLAND LOCATION AGRICU L TU RAL EXEMPTION o I Scale in j \, ~; *r~. iin"'" r I ~ f i . 1 EXHIBIT A lee;OO w-$-' ~ Bonestroo -=- Rosene ~ Anderlik & 11J 1 Associates Engineers & Architects 2006 f I ,J, ....\oil '., '. ~ ,O' "11 , ,1 -, .. .. ~ ~ j .. 'l) ... '\~. ~ . "- ) " '..~ ".,,~. . f , '" . ; , l-.~' 1i~,. ~ '. .11 \ * '..... ""\'10 '~,1$ " ".. ....,. " ,.~... ,~ .. '. "..".1.., . "'" U.' .. '. · 1.~' 'I " ~- ~t.iol ~ ~ ' ~: -;.; , ,!;< '.''- #'\ "":l-. " . '., .,..... '....., '.. '~ · .... "..... .t..:. ,~...' ."!, . ',' ".. .~~. t. ~":'~~;;.'" ..;'u ',,>. ".' ~. ~"""1~ ..... d,'. . l' . of ., _ t ',' .~' ~ " '... '"'' ". . 'I" ;"'. ..' u; \. I '" r .. 1 . "; ~ .. ..~ ~ , . ~ ~ . ',:\., \.":tl '", ., j, .'. " :-a; ~ . ......, .... - I "'" .. . . ;'" "~ .- 'f$, <tLfI/ ...' "~,r.. 'i'>~ '1 . '., ".., ,(t ,. ';':';f, ~'f '.. v ... 'J;~ \' . .. . - " ~ 'i 1 -:.~~ ~ . '. 'l,.~, 1 ", ., oil "" '~ >> . ... . v., , ,. '. , ........'~ ' ,; ,,', · ',;41'1'" '~'" I" n. \ ~\...~'J' J I' .. . ~, I . 'f.. . , '", "'. ......Jt,..,j t I .~ ~', . .. , '\ \' l l . ~- \ :I .. - . ... . .. .1 ..' ; . f ~ -.. ~........ ..... f r. -{ ,,( r " . '~')- 'I.. ...... .-- n . " r ~ " '11 '. .... "\or. ~ ~ -, ~ ..' .... 'l ~ , . , . ,.. ~'\ 4 ..( :1: ~ .... " " *' , . \ ) I I I' '\- " . 4t ) {'I <C t.< ',- " '. .4'-. >' , J.' . " '-..,.,... ~~..-"ho"f"'4. , '. ... '4lo." """'" . " . , ' " . .,.....u_ . \ .~.~" , ) A~..,.;If .' <', . ( . ~ ~ ~.. "I ., '.".~.. ; ,~.... ~ "" , . '" . () .. . 1 '- III J.. ~ - " , . ..~ I ,. '. . , 'k. l,~III... " , fIl\.'1 ".'. ;, ~",. I .~ f "-tea ' ft~i~( . .~': "".... ", ~ ; , ... >, .. '.11~ /. .. ',' ." -...) "i" II- ,: " ,. ~ ,.'. '1' .' - . , ~,:"..' ~ " --- ~ ~ ......-. _I ~ ~ ~ ......... ~ \1) ~ ~ .. .- #' "." ,'\ 'J ., .',~" q ;' . ',." , ,~),;:' . ; ";;~,!1. !J:~r:i;;' ~. . .;.:' '~r:~ , l.w'" ~< 1':" ~: '" r~" , t.,:"' ,. ~;;;" l~> 101" 't ~.;....' '!"'J !.r:I ,- ~ , ) ~ . (',.~ t. - ., .", ~ J ;.'" ~ I ~ ] ,f' r.,' ;r ~.:: ...........J~~ ~ ~ " . " "1' , . " :' , "''''r:: l \ ~ ,\ (I :{' " 'I. . ' , ~"'ll ' ~'n /r~, {~J~~ . ~,,,,,, ',", , 't ./';$1. filL'rT P' -r.l; rri" ~ l, 'If ,/~ ~ r! 'f I r1 ' 1 l;; I: 'I . , l ~ l l' r '" : 1:- ~ ('t~:' ~-, J. ~~ .1 .10- I ~ f. 11. ~l p~l,] 1,.' "{'~'I"JU.i",, jI)) '" {., L "l \.r. > I_ t 't, l '-. I ~ \ __... f. ~J it'il ...1.. ~ - " ,: '~, J ~ r, {( "l""..,r)~1 ~ ~..l " ( I ..~.. { r".(J J.~ III 1 (. I ~ .,l ilIl~"'1 : ~~.. ~"".h'ti)o f::> J-'~ ~ . \;" " .c""f'~I.! \ -, ,.1' ~/q,.,If. ~ "f " t. J-. ( , . I ',{j 'jr' "1a 'r, f :J. . # L.. J) ['0,"'. { r \(} , I \.I . I ""-- ~ ':II ... \ ~ . . ' fJl t ~ L ~iJ ... ":.~, \Ii .. oF Q#~\\~:;; ~l~ I .,' I;::'~~\J.. 'C)w~ c. ~~,,'~~!~~ E~I~ · \ -~, ;], L ? ~ ~L.}:lt~. " f17....... j~' ':JJ VJ !lfl .~r\ ~ .j-;:'": I {} ~~~ ....:.. . L.a;pA .p o P:lo~ j'-; ~ ," t ~ - ~(; t~~~' I,J'.. ft:j t ~ ~~ " '. i(' €1i~'" j1A : /t '~',' ' Q.,. ~ r- n.~rr' - - I .::J., ~ ~ ,~1I:;lI ,~ "1IJ1~'tu II ~_ 6l~J~ '7jJ "'~. ". ,r.,... ,l L:. ,~ ::J ",:-...1 . ... ;, ~ , . "":. \ ~ Ii .,. -;-, ~ ~ i!~ ,..,..~ ''tj- ~ .. , ~ :"~ - {flit ~'1' -~; ,-; 1 /1 ~. .... .;.I " '~ ~ r ~. -t t. .., ~ .., 1 .,1 l ,;; l. ) ~: " ~ ;:'l' " :Jo .-. t .. ,." r(~ :1> 1., ..' / l' .: t~' t! . .. ,I '.) io1o ~ ~~ 'i '. t:l .... . .. ::: '~ I f1"~ 'J,.... ~ litJ ~, " . - ":f l' .. \. .. ,4.' ...... ~...1 .:- ~, n i'~': '" , ~.~ ....it. · ~_' IJ,I _Ai ~n!",. H A l r. III ~ r. ( , 'O. ~. ~~ -iJ' /.'. ~,~ If' ~ lfJ I ! tf1l.y C1f. l.tj.'-I ;.'. f .:..- . .. '"." " ",.,Q- ,,' . , 'f R.f.',;i.;'!f,,~-, ,.; .. . ':"f' '<:{'J ,t:Hi w/~1 41 '. ,4;,,::'- .1':t;,'I'l:' ,/ iV., ! t1 . . \" I ~ ' ,to . ""'oJ., ~,. -"~\'l.'.:l;' '....~' ~'" ~ "'L .'. ~ . :"l~'..: "':. .,,,, .,' .0 gQOc~ ~ ,0;:( [ nr.:L 'Y . ~ P1~rll t.1P [ ~~ ~ 'f1'I' ,ffi I:]Ir" t',;~;': n' . t/ ~ _,,' .!' t.~ ~ " ~I' ~ Pi l 'flu .1 "" '" ;. (I ". (I i:I ..I~.... , ':lit ,jJ it", ~ ..;, · 11[' III ~l ~ ":\. UI -" ::> .~.. - " .t~ '" It f ,t .. ... ..... ... a q- .... Ii -~; \..i -.- .1IfO ., , I) " 11 ~ ...., .,,~JAo" '. , " r:Ji ~ I ':t a II ... ,,~.[. " , ',\'5., '. -';u r ~ - I ~~~. ...... ::'r-.t. ~'. . ~\" ,,' . . .U~',:.:l-,'l' "it ~A;( ~,' l:" 'I," .;,~" . ';,.<t I", --.,. " ,l~ ~;,., .X" ,~. " ", ')J, rf;';' , 't:o~ -,- ..... ::: ,;;. ~:CI -- I I - \ -~. N A 2005