Minutes from 1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 7 Anoka County Mitigation Policy - Skallman reportedly com- mented that it was reasonable to require wetlands to be restored to the highest quality. His reasoning was the LRRWMO is giving the county a break by banking the small projects. Also, the county will have one big project where it can pick and choose the optimum location for construction. Review of the Dewatering Permit Review Procedure The board discussed the draft Dewatering Permit Review Procedure. Schrantz indicated these permits will be coming through the DNR. He would prefer to let the DNR deal with the majority of the dewatering permit reviews, unless we are aware of something they are not, with the LRRWMO reviewing DNR comments. Erickson stated the DNR will be sending them to the LRRWMO Consulting Engineer for his review also. Considerable discussion ensued with regard to the proposed procedure. The Administrative Secretary noted where an addition could be made, second to last sentence of the first paragraph, and recommended the following insertion: "... by the Consulting Engineer. Upon discussion between the Consul- ting Engineer and the appropriate City Engineer, whereby a concurrence has been reached that a project may proceed prior to the full LRRWMO board's review and approval, the City Rnrtinaar may infnrm the applicant of the permitted action. r shall provide a wr Discussion followed relative to, before an applicant is given the go ahead to proceed with the dewatering project, how many LRRWMO members should be involved in this decision along with the Consulting Engineer. The portion of the draft June 25, 1992, special meeting minutes discussing the dewatering permit procedure was read. Considerable discussion ensued on who would pay for the review of the dewatering permits and how that process would work. The board concurred as long as it receives an itemized list of project reviews from the Consulting Engineer, assign- ing the expenses to the proper project account should be easy enough. The question arose on what to do should a dewatering permit be reviewed but there is no project account against which to assess the review expense. Schultz felt the LRRWMO should establish a policy to either pay all dewatering permits or bill them back to the cities. The LRRWMO could bill the cities for these dewatering permit review fees perhaps once every six months, maybe in conjunction with payment of the membership dues.