Laserfiche WebLink
LRRWMO Meeting Minutes <br />December 15, 1994 <br />Page 9 <br />Beduhn explained that Ohman's response is correct, it is included in State Law that State <br />agencies, the DNR and Mn/DOT are their own LGU. Obermeyer advised that Mn/DOT <br />is in the process of applying for permits for the 210 Corridor; however, they have obtained <br />a verbal opinion from the Attorney General's office indicating permits from local watershed <br />agencies were not necessary. The current status with Mn/DOT is that they will continue <br />with current practices and obtain permits from WMOs but may pursue, in the future, a <br />formal response from the Attorney General regazding this matter. <br />Beduhn noted that a concern for the LRRWMO is whether Mn/DOT will pay for a permit. <br />Obermeyer agreed and explained that the watersheds he works with do not charge a fee for <br />permits. He advised there is a precedence where Mn/DOT has had to pay DNR permit fees <br />so perhaps they would pay the WMO permit fee. Obermeyer explained the LRRWMO may <br />wish to obtain a legal interpretation on this. <br />Beduhn pointed out that the LRRWMO still has the option to request plans for review and <br />comment. He explained that Mn/DOT has been developing a fairly large wetland bank in <br />other areas and since they would be a state-wide LGU it is likely they will use this <br />established bank to mitigate, which could greatly impact communities. <br />Schultz commented this appeazs to be a "double standazd" and suggested the LRRWMO <br />send a letter to Mn/DOT requesting they submit plans for review. <br />Obermeyer stated Ban Engineering will keep the LRRWMO advised of future action <br />regarding this matter. <br />Jankowski noted the LRRWMO sent Mn/DOT a letter in December of 1993 regazding their <br />bridge construction project and advising them of the need to address additional storm water <br />run off. Schultz added that they were informed of the need for a permit but have never <br />responded. <br />Obermeyer explained the issue is whether the LRRWMO can enforce their requirements <br />beyond review and comment of the plans. Jankowski noted that dialog between parries <br />usually results in some improvement. <br />Consensus was reached to direct the Secretary to send a letter to Mn/DOT requesting <br />notification of any projects within the LRRWMO watershed area. <br />NEW BUSINESS <br />Letters from Ban Engineeri~ to Stone Construction Re: Permit for Royal Engineerine & <br />Carbide Tool <br />Beduhn explained this project is located in the Anoka Enterprise Park and involves several <br />issues. The City of Anoka prepared a regional storm water basin; however, these three <br />