Agenda - Council - 09/22/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

'! I I I I I I I I I ! i I I -9- 4. The site groundwater is not protected by an aquiclude, and the groundwater protection problem cannot be resolved (number 12 on the flowchart). The basis for this conclusion is set forth in MPCA Exhibit 5 at pages 18-19. During the comment period Anoka County submitted written comments and information on this recommendation and urged that the site be certified as intrinsically suitable for sanitary landfill use. The County's comments and submittal of new information concerning the Director's bases for not certifying the site are discussed below. Lake/Pond/Flowage Anoka County has objected to the Director's determination that the body of water in the southwest corner of the proposed fill area is a "lake, pond or flowage.°' The County's basis of objections is that the DNR Shoreland Management Inventory upon which the Director has relied in making his determination has no legal status because the City of Ramsey has not adopted a shoreland ordinance. The County states that the DNR's inventory was prepared only to aid municipalities in preparing their municipal shoreland ordinances. EAs explained in the letter of Jocelyn F. Olson to Hearing xaminer Thomas Jensen dated September 2, 1981, the MPCA staff is relying on the DNR Shoreland Management Inventory to determine which bodies of water in the State of Minnesota come withi'n the definition of "lake, pond or flowage." The fact that the City of Ramsey has no setback requirement with respect to wetland 2-117W does not negate the fact that DNR has determined that this body of