Cabelas to fill wetlands!!!!!!!!!

[Mark Christianson]

Are you kidding me????

The Startribune had an article today in regards to the proposed Cabelas store in Rogers.

This statement is taken from that report:

"Even Cabela's, the ultimate outdoors store, comes with an unintended price: the store will be built over several wetlands, forcing the store and the city to try to restore them elsewhere."

Sorry, but digging some holes elsewhere to repay the filling of natural wetlands doesn't sound very good to me.

Cabelas is a market leader in the outdoors, and they have the nads to fill wetlands to build on their empire.

I am not about to boycott Cabelas because of this, but come on............. They cant find some place to build a new store that won't compromise the already fading wetlands?

Just goes to show ya, we can bust our butts to save wetlands, and big money will win in the end.

What a disaapointment that we can't even depend on an outdoors market leader to lead the way in just a little conservation.

Selfish comes to mind.

[WaveWacker]

The price that is paid with development is not good. However, I wonder what type of wetlands they are filling?? They will have to do more then just dig some holes for replacement. The replacement areas are monitored so that they will as high or higher value then the filled wetlands and they will have to make it up on a 2:1 basis. So yes, it's not good but I wonder if the media didn't blow things up some (imagine that). I did not see the article however.

WW

[Farley]

I saw the article and thought the same thing. They will have a section of the store called "Conservation Mountian", but will have to fill in wetlands to build the store? Hopefully some of their earnings will go to funding the wetlands that will replace the ones they destroy. But not likley.

[lawdog]

Quote:

---

Hopefully some of their earnings will go to funding the wetlands that will replace the ones they destroy. But not likley.

---

The law says you have to replace any wetlands you destroy at a 2 to 1 rate. In other words, you destroy an acre you build/re-establish TWO acres. Its not a question of what they might do with their profits, that's the law.

I do agree that its unfortunate whenever wetlands are destroyed, but I wouldn't get down on them too bad. First of all, these could be very marginally even considered wetlands, we don't know. Secondly, I don't know that there are many places you can build something this big and not have at least a little environmental impact. Third, the law on replacement wetlands is pretty decent and just digging a whole doesn't quite cut it. They have to establish as good or better wetlands and usually they re-establish old drained wetlands and those are very beneficial to have back.

The booming and sprawling housing developments and ever expansion of the metro area is the real problem, not this store coming there after its already booming in my opinion.

[lumbertick]

I'm not here to bash Cabela's. I don't think that what they are doing is a major sin. However, if you are resting comfortably that current wetlands laws are doing enough to protect wetlands in MN you are very wrong. First of all, even though wetland mitigation requires a 2:1 replacement of equal or lesser quality, there is very little monitoring of this replacement...which means that sometimes all that is done is digging a hole, or the actual wetland replacement is much less than even 1:1. The next issue with the law is the exemption of certain wetlands that can be eliminated without so much as a permit. The laws have continually eroded the list of protected wetlands by adding to the list of exempt wetlands. Just because it is a seasonal wetland or lower class wetland don't assume that it does not have importance to the eco system. Again, not here to bash Cabela's...just a little education and a chance to remind people to get a hold of there reps and let them know what you think of this...it's as easy as posting on this forum

lt

[full force five]

Quote:

---

The booming and sprawling housing developments and ever expansion of the metro area is the real problem, not this store coming there after its already booming in my opinion.

---

I must be missing something but are they not contributing to urban sprawl by adding this store? The area around 101 and 94/694/494 is already a mess, it's will only get worse if Cabelas go in there. Do we really need another sporting goods store in the twin cities?

[Mark Christianson]

Lets not turn this into a topic on whether we need another store or not.

There has been a lot of passionate discussions on FM over the loss of habitat, and I just find this very disappointing that Cabelas would fill wetlands to continue their growth. Just kind of ironic I guess.

[LABS4ME]

Just throwing my 2 cents in...

It is sad that this can happen, but it will continue to happen. The "best" or most suitable land for development has for the most part been used up in the metro area... Secondary parcels are being bought and developed now. Wetlands, slopes, poor soils will not stop the march of development!

I work in an industry that is closely tied to new developments and it is sad to see the habitat being destroyed, I hope the work we do at least lessens the blow, even if minimally, but if you think the wetlands being replaced are of equal or better quality, you haven't checked into what developers get away with! Most are nothing more than silt ponds of low water quality when they are done. There is no way we can mimic with a backhoe in days, what took mother nature centuries to make.

With that said, wouldn't it be great if Cabela's would situate or develop the store with the thought of preserving or showcasing as much of the natural wetlands on the property as possible? Use it as an example of how we can minimize the degardation of habitat through development and give the whole store an "outdoors" theme. But that may take more property which costs them more money, which lowers their return on profits. It's unfortunate, but that is how the world turns. In the end what remains of the wetlands on the fringes of the property will turn into NURP ponds for the storm water run-off from the parking lot. You'll get a resident flock of geese to use it and all is right with the world.... again the way we've been programmed to think and except things over the last 50 years in the name of progress.

Is there anything that we can do about this project? Probably not, I'm sure it is to far along in the planning process, but we must move forward to hold our elected officials responsible to 'shore up' the no net loss poliies that are supposedly in place. As a nation we always wait till it's to late, and that point is drawing near!

Good Luck!

Ken

[Mike Walerak]

Okay, maybe the law has changed now , but the last time I investigated it was only 2 years ago. The law then stated that wetlands must be replaced in 2:1 ratio if the wetland could not be replaced within the same watershed. If it can be replaced in the same watershed it only has to be replaced 1:1. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Off the subject:

This is part of the reason the pothole region is getting more wetlands and WPA's. It has to do with urban sprawl in the everglades. The replace them 2:1 in the Dakotas and other areas of need. While I have no facts on this info in front of me right now, it is happening all over the U.S.

mw

[lumbertick]

Mike, you are right, that's what the law says....but thats not what is necessarily happening. I know, it's hard to believe that laws are broken and people don't get caught!!! There are other factors also that are working against the no net loss program...another is exempt wetlands..the list gets longer every year. A lof of people (read law makers) believe that just because you can't see water in the wetland in August that it has no value and thus there is no need to include it in the no net loss program. The original intent of the law is good, but it has so many loopholes in it right now it developers can walk right through it.

lt

[hobbydog]

Have you been to Cabelas in Owatanna? They have wetlands on the property....they even have hen houses on the "ponds". Urban ponds are only going to produce city ducks if any ducks at all. Urban sprawl is going to happen and if it is going to happen in Rogers it may as well be Cabelas. If there was ever a company to go out of it's way to do things right it is Cabelas.

As far as loopholes in the law, show me a case where they have not been enforced.

http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wcamanual/

The law is pretty strict and enforced. It is part of any planned developement and in most cases the wetlands to be replaced are spelled out in great detail. There are companies that restore wetlands and sell the credits to companies. Would you trade a marginal metro drainage collection pond for a restored wetland in western MN? I would.....and I will bet my Benelli it will happen in this case......any takers?

[lumbertick]

Hobbydog,

Just to clarify the wetlands" that you see at the Owatonna cabelas are not wetlands...they are sed ponds that are desingned to control runoff from the building and parking lot. They were not designed as wetlands replacement and only slightly function like a wetland. The fact that Cabelas has put hen houses in them is more window window dressing than anything. Sure they get some ducks in them, but you're right...city ducks. I am not sure, but I think that may be what you are refering to when you say that it is part of every planned development. This is part of the clean air and water act...phase 2, and is in addition to any wetland mitigation. The dnr, under their own admission has said that the wetland mitigation laws are not provinding MN with at no net loss that was intended. I will search the article and try to post a link. Yes, there is a lot of fancy permits and a specific list of regulations on the surface...the nuts and bolts of it is not working like it was intended.

lt

[lumbertick]

OK, not sure how to link this so I will just give this information. If you look up the ST Paul Pioneer Press for Tues. Jan 18th Chris Niskanen has an article that describe what I am talking about. Also the dnr HSOforum has a report out if look in the area of wetlands. Sorry...I am not a computer guy!!!

lt

[Mark Christianson]

I have no proof, but I cannot believe that we(humans) can even make a wetland that provides all the exact functions that a natural wetland contains.

[lawdog]

BLB, I'm sure not all are this way, but the few I know and have been involved in, actually reclaimed and recreated drained wetlands that weren't wetlands any longer. I'm pretty sure they provided more benefit than what was eliminated. I don't have a lot of experience with this, but the couple I've been involved in any way, I think they worked just as the law intended...

[cyberamish]

Has anyone actually seen the proposed site? If it is where I was told it would be (across from the Graco building) the only wetland that I see there is a small drainage ditch running west to east that is dry 9 months out of the year. There may be some cattails or marshland back to the South of the road but from what I have seen it was all plowed and planted last year. Just don't let the media (left wing or right wing) shape your opinions without getting all the facts for yourself.

[Roosterslayer05]

Hahaha, im an 18 year old kid and i know that corporations dont always follow the laws. If they can get out of something they will. Theres loopholes everywhere. Its nice to see that you believe in laws so much, i wish they were always followed but its definaly not the case. These coprations have tons of good lawyers to get them out of allot of things. They have money so they have power, thats how this country works my friend.

[hobbydog]

Quote:

---

Hahaha, im an 18 year old kid and i know that corporations dont always follow the laws. If they can get out of something they will. Theres loopholes everywhere. Its nice to see that you believe in laws so much, i wish they were always followed but its definaly not the case. These coprations have tons of good lawyers to get them out of allot of things. They have money so they have power, thats how this country works my friend.

---

So do you think a corporation like Cabelas who will spend several hundred thousand on a deal like this before ground is broken would intentionally skirt a wetlands law which would cost them little in comparison to the millions to get this store built. Do you know what it would cost them in public relations if they tried to pull off such a stunt? Cabelas has an excellent reputation, violating a wetland law would be more than foolish. Are you taking me up on my bet?

Show me a corporation that has violated the wetland law in this state. I am sure there are some but I would like to see you show some proof.