Minutes from 1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes July 20, 1995 Page 12 they will get approval anyway. Schultz stated he does not believe it will make much difference, one way or the other, what the WMO's engineer comments on. He noted if the WMO engineer requires installation of silt fences and erosion control, the contractor may take the position that it will cost more, and if the contractor refuses, what will the WMO do. Ferguson stated he has assumed the DNR protected wetlands were taken care of by the DNR, except for when fringe wetlands are involved. Schultz pointed out it is the responsibility of the local WMO to control quality of water regazdless of DNR. He asked if residents can sue the WMO if they don't have oversight. Weaver requested a legal opinion from the LRRWMO attorney to assure the LRRWMO's position is correct. He noted this is a major event within a wetland and the LRRWMO cannot make exceptions. Weaver stated he does not like the position Ramsey has placed the LRRWMO in. Haas concurred and noted the LRRWMO may have a different position than the DNR takes. Jankowski asked if the LRRWMO wants to require a permit and payment of the $500 escrow even though the Corp of Engineers, DNR and PCA aze looking at it. Perry stated a permit should be required if it has been required in the past, and the LRRWMO should not establish a precedence just for Ramsey. Jankowski noted the LRRWMO has held discussion about their concern with layers of government which creates confusion and asked what they aze trying to accomplish. He asserted the LRRWMO is exercising prudent responsibility and control over the environment and, frankly, he does not know what the WMO engineer will say that the DNR has not already said. Haas concurred with Weaver's request for a legal opinion to determine jurisdiction. Mazk Lobermeier, SEH, stated there may be three overlapping jurisdictions in this project. He noted the questions is whether the DNR review has satisfied the LRRWMO's concerns as they relate to the WCA and stated his opinion that since this is a public utility project, it is probably exempt under the WCA. Lobermeier stated if he were the engineer reviewing this permit, he would look to the Wetland Exemption Act. Ferguson asked if restoration plans were done as part of the project. Jankowski explained construction activity will be restricted so seed-bearing material is striped off and segregated, and underlying sand also segregated and stockpiled. This material will be placed within a silt fence and then back filling will occur in reverse order.