What constitutes a “feasible and prudent” alternative under a Wetland Conservation Act avoidance analysis? In re Wetland Conservation Act Appeal involving the Zander Property (Minn. App. A04-314) (December 14, 2004) (unpublished). Waseca County landowners charged that under the avoidance requirement of the Wetland Conservation Act, the Minnesota Department of Transportation was obligated to choose a road alignment that avoided impact to 7.34 acres of wetland on their property. The Minnesota Court of Appeals noted that WCA requires an alternative that avoids wetland impact only if it is “feasible and prudent.” It found that the record supported MnDOT’s finding that the alternative for which the landowners argued was not feasible and prudent, because it would convert 16.75 additional acres of farmland to highway right-of-way; disrupt existing farm fields and increase travel distances to those fields; would diminish safety by adding curves and retaining rail crossings; and would increase project costs by $2,345,000. The Court also found that MnDOT had met its obligation to avoid impacts to endangered species and that the landowners’ evidence of potential impacts was speculative. Full text of ruling
|
||
 |
||