Minutes from 1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes July 20, 1995 Page 8 dry, then put down points. Now they want to avoid impacting the wetland as much as they possibly can, which is the reason they propose segmenting the operation. Jankowski asserted this procedure will restore wetlands more rapidly to preconstruction levels. Weaver asked if the permitting procedure for a municipality is different than for a private individual. Jankowski explained dewatering permits have not been reviewed by the WMO engineer but the DNR has a list of agencies from which they request comments, which includes the WMO. Jankowski advised he asked Tom Hovey (DNR) if they get comments back from WMOs and he indicated not really, unless there is an unusual situation or large number of things being proposed that would alter the lake level of significant wetland with shore development. Weaver requested further detail on the proposed project. Jankowski explained the major interceptor sewer pipe is 30 inches in diameter, about 1,900 feet long, and to be placed 25 feet below the elevation of the wetland. This area is within the MUSA line and is needed for the Ramsey School expansion. Bruce Perry commented this project has far more impact on the wetland than a project like Steven Fries' driveway. Jankowski pointed out it will only have a brief, temporary impact. Schultz questioned whether the plans are done and the erosion control information submitted to the WMO. Jankowski explained the plans are done and have been submitted to the DNR who are requesting comments. Haas asked if Ramsey has considered a lift station rather than going through a wetland with potential maintenance problems. Jankowski explained their Comprehensive Plan calls for an interceptor. Schultz noted this project is impacting a designated wetland and asked if the WMO is to act on the permit. Jankowski pointed out this is a DNR wetland and Ramsey has addressed the project with them. He agreed it is a city project that effects a wetland but the wetland is being protected by the DNR with input from the WMO. He asked if requiring a WMO permit isn't "redoing" what the DNR has already done. Weaver explained he looks at this project from a different perspective. He noted this is a pristine wetland that will really be impacted by the proposed project and needs to be protected. If the wetland does not reconstitute itself after the dewatering, the LRRWMO would be "nailed" for not following the process required of other individuals. Jankowski agreed there will be an impact, but someone, the DNR, has looked at that impact and placed reasonable conditions on the work. Jankowski advised this project has been let and the bids awarded several weeks ago, and the action before the LRRWMO is to comment on the dewatering activity. It was noted this request was received after the June 15th meeting so the DNR comment period of 30 days expired; however, the secretary called f