Agenda - Council - 02/22/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i these problems. S~nbsequent to the submittal of these applications it became apparent that the resulting facilities plans recommen- dation would not be implemented, even if it was less costly and more environmentally sound than an interceptor alternative. Based on this reason the applications were returned and no facilities plans were prepared. Therefore, there has been no official documntation of need in the unsewered areas and no official study which indicates that the CAB interceptor is the cost effective alternative for this area. Phase Out T]~e 20~ Water Quality Management Plan Revisions recommends that the Anoka Facility be upgraded, but not before 1987. The plan also recommends that, "a decision on the Anoka River Crossing will be made when the impact of an expanded Anoka P~%'TP has been determined. This will be made during the 1981-1984 periods." We concur with this revision to the 208 Plan. Minneapolis East Interceptor The capacity of the Minneapolis East Interceptor has been a major question. As has been discussed and documented, the Minneapolis East Interceptor does not have sufficient capacity to allow for the projected design flows resulting from the services made by the CAB interceptor. The Minneapolis East Interceptor must have tJ~e necessary capacity to convey the existing and future dry weather flows from i2~e Northwest Area. Therefore, the Minneapolis East Interceptor expansions must be staged either prior to or concurrently with the staging of service in the CAB interceptor service area. The proposal to design both phases at the present time, and stage construction of the lower (%) segment concurrent with the CAB construction is consistent with this concept. Construction of the upper segment of the CAB must be staged to preclude the possibility of dry weather overflows from actual flows eminating from the service area. Grant Allowabili_ ty Perhaps the most prominent issue pertaining to the CAB interceptor is the matter of grant allowability. Due to the lack of supporti]~g documentation of needs for the unsewered areas this Agency or EPA cannot fund the CAB interceptor. Therefore, we understand that local funds will be utilized for the design and construction of the CAB interceptor. The Blaine Intercep{or proposed in this report would also not be allowable for Construction Grants Funding. Again, this is because specific needs for %hose unsewered portions of Blaine have not been demonstra ted.