My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
07/25/2001 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2001
>
07/25/2001 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2014 4:27:23 PM
Creation date
7/31/2014 10:03:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
07/25/2001
Env Bd Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
302
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br />ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 <br />Trehus indicated the Watershed District was reviewing their standards, and only dealt <br />with average rainfall but the lakes would be impacted. He indicated he spoke to <br />representatives at the Watershed District who agreed with his recommendation. Mr. <br />Payton responded that the request was moot, because the Watershed District was the <br />qualified party to deal with those issues. <br />Trehus pointed out that the Watershed District did not have the financial resources to do <br />the study. Mr. Payton answered that the Watershed District regularly reviews their <br />standards. <br />Chair Lanyon explained that the study would be relevant to the City. <br />Trehus urged the Board to make the recommendation, and let the Council decide, for <br />instance an analysis using computer modeling on the increased volume of runoff into <br />George Watch Lake. Chair Lanyon agreed and added the message the Board wants to <br />send is that a study needed to be done, and given the size of the project, with the impact <br />remaining unknown, it needed to be addressed explicitly. <br />Mr. Payton stated that issues such as infiltration, pondin retainment and treatment were <br />all being dealt with by the Watershed District. <br />Asleson explained all responsibility for the imp <br />Target project. He commented that the Wate : ed <br />not the upper part of the district. <br />t be placed on the Ryan <br />studies on the lower but <br />Chair Lanyon commented that the Bo ure the Watershed District <br />specifically addressed the impact of vo <br />Trehus noted the report, wh. <br />loading. <br />Kukonen stated all <br />know what the W <br />message to the Coun <br />water volumes of runo <br />b itted, showed significant phosphorus <br />tudies were still pending, and the Board did not <br />c was dealing with. Chair Lanyon reiterated that the <br />e that because of the scope of the project, the issue of <br />ed to be addressed specifically. <br />Mr. Payton explained that the public value credit and the creation of the wetland were <br />already planned. Chair Lanyon indicated the issues of concern for the Board were the <br />water volume and water quality issues. <br />Donlin assured Mr. Payton that the Board appreciated the graciousness in which he had <br />dealt with the criticisms of the Board, however, the Environmental Assessment <br />Worksheet caused the Board to have some real concerns about the impact of the project. <br />She indicated that compromises occurred all the way down the Mississippi River. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.