Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Hr. Lloyd Schnel le <br />C i ty of Ramsey <br />September 27, 1982 <br />Page Two <br /> <br />Prior to the completion of this improvement I was notified <br />by your office that the Minnesota DNR had expressed cbncern <br />over the validity of my efforts and, in response to a <br />citizen's comment, had decided to inspect the project. StJCh <br />inspection was made prior to the project's completion re'~ult- <br />lng in a letter from their environmental people to the City <br />of Ramsey dated 9-13-82 reviewing the improvement operation, s <br />and offering certain observations and recommendations that <br />were generally negative in nature towards my efforts. <br /> <br />I found the DNR's letter to be somewhat overreactive in <br />context and technically unsound in certain areas. I offer <br />the following comments referenced by the DNR letter's <br />sections: <br /> <br />Sec. I I , Paragraph 1 <br /> <br />Prior to the installation of the steps the slope was not <br />covered with a dense stand of brush and downslope erosion <br />was far greater due to the unvegetated pathway than currently <br />exists ~ith the protection of the steps and adjacent sod. <br /> <br />Sec. 11, Paragraph 2 <br /> <br />The writer is only speculating that a "significant amount <br />of fill" was removed from the slope; in fact no fill was <br />removed from the slope although the existing material was <br />more evenly distributed on the slope to facilitate an even <br />gradient for the steps. <br /> <br /> <br />