My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 12-17-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCP 12-17-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:53 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 2:37:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
133
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 /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />. While it is acceptable to adopt and/or reference the policies, objectives, and rules <br />set forth by the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), the RSWCD strongly <br />suggests that the City of Arden Hills use this opportuility to take a more <br />proactive approach to addressing water quality issues. This could mean more <br />specific attention to addressing and applying selected RCWD goals and policies <br />within the City, In addition, we would suggest the City consider developing <br />locally specific goals, policies, and application methods based on elements of <br />both the RCWD plan and the County Groundwater Plan. <br /> <br />. We also suggest that if the City of Arden Hills is adopting RCWD objectives and <br />policies as their own, then this plan (e.g., in Section 4) make a more detailed <br />examination of actions the City intends to take (or not to take) with regards to <br />each of those objectives and the associated policies. By giving a more detailed <br />indication of what role(s) the City intends to take in water quality protection, the <br />document will become a more clear and comprehensive plan that in which the <br />City's desired roles ,and actions are more clear-cut. <br /> <br />Specific Comments: <br /> <br />RSWCD also has some specific comments, made with the general comments in <br />mind. For example: <br /> <br />· The plan has no specific mention of plans to protect groundwater (other than a e <br />reference to theRCWD plan). Obviously, we strongly suggest more specific <br />goals, objectives, and methods within the plan. For example, the City is <br />planning to increase infiltration of stormwater. It is not clear how the city is <br />planning to ensure that groundwater quality will be protected from potential <br />contaminants in stormwater. <br /> <br />. Also, would the City consider any land-use controls or other regulatory actions <br />to protect both groundwater and surface water quality? This topic and the <br />reasoning behind the City's decision(s) should be discussed in Section 4. <br /> <br />. Objective F in Section 4 includes a policy to transition water management <br />responsibilities to local government where feasible. There is no indication of <br />what the City might be consdering with respect to this policy (that presumably is <br />being adopted as the City's own policy). Does the City wish to take some <br />regulatory authority and use it to protect groundwater and surface water <br />resources? As noted in the general comments, a discussion of this topic and the <br />reasoning behind the City's ultimate decision would help clarify exactly what the <br />City's intentions are with respect to its role in water quality protection, <br /> <br />. It is good to have the listing of potential contaminant sources (PCSs) (Appendix <br />0), but what does the City plan to do with this information? Would the City like <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />arden_hills _ oct_ 2001_ SWMP .doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.