Laserfiche WebLink
Board Member Max requested that when the findings are analyzed, it would be helpful to <br />comment on any rare species found. <br /> <br />Coordinator Anderson agreed it would be helpful if at some point this project could be <br />expanded upon. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda indicated as an advisory board the Council was looking at the cost <br />and benefits of zero versus 100% ground-proofing. <br /> <br />Board Member Max mentioned he was surprised that the City did not qualify for any <br />Metropolitan Council funding for the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson indicated they wanted the projects funded to be tied to water quality. He <br />had a project that qualified in 2003, a wetland buffer study. It began in Minnehaha <br />Creek, with a poorly researched project. Most tests were designed for agricultural <br />purposes and not residential. They submitted a plan for a three year study, to choose sites <br />not yet under development. Samples would be taken before, during and after the <br />development takes place. If buffers did not remain in place during the development, it <br />could change the surface water flow. Ultimately, it would shift the focus to post <br />development. At the present time they were looking at one site. They were planning on <br />simulating rain events and were reworking their proposal. <br /> <br />Environmental Specialist Bacon inquired if there would be a biotic assessment. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson answered that it would be based on water chemistry. <br /> <br />Environmental Specialist Bacon reiterated that the biotic was important and should be <br />included. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson stated the money was tied to water quality. He believed that if the water <br />quality was good, it would provide good habitat. <br /> <br />Environmental Specialist Bacon inquired about the trend in addressing sedimentation <br />ponds. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson responded the trend was to move away from the use of sedimentation ponds <br />and toward more creative technologies such as swales and rain gardens. He admitted that <br />sedimentation ponds were overall an inefficient model for dealing with surface water. <br /> <br />Environmental Specialist Bacon indicated if the impacts could be assessed, then they <br />could be referenced and serve as an early warning for impacted zones. <br /> <br />Board Member Freeburg questioned if any organic studies were done, such as pesticides <br />and herbicides. <br /> <br />Environmental Policy Board / May 1, 2006 <br /> Page 6 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />